NOV  12  1915 


u.vi8ioii3S?425 

Sectioa 


(      NOV  12  1915 
THE    ILLEGALITY   OF       ::iOmi^ 

THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


BY 


HONORABLE  JOHN  E.  RICHARDS 

yitsociate  yuitice  of  the  First  District   Court  of  Appeals  of  California 


THE    LEGALITY   OF 

THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


BY 


S.  SRINIVASA   AIYAR,    B.A.B.L. 

OF  MYLAPORE,  INDIA 
High   Court   Vakil  and  Editor  Madras  Laiv  Journal 


New  York 

PI,ATT  &  PECK  COMPANY 


Copyright 
Charles  E.  George 
1915 


CONTENTS 


The  Illegality  of  the  Trial  of  Jesus     ....      9 
The  Legality  of  the  Trial  of  Jesus     ....     53 

The  Roman  Trial 163 

Bibliography 181 


INTRODUCTORY 

The  present  state  of  our  knowledge  concerning  the 
legahty  or  the  illegahty  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  may  be 
likened  to  an  unfinished  building  in  which  much  of 
the  foundation  is  unlaid.  The  times  demand  more 
knowledge.  A  study  of  the  dawn  of  the  Christian 
Era  is  of  never  ending  interest,  and  especially  is  this 
so  when  new  facts  are  brought  to  light  and  fair  argu- 
ment is  based  thereon.  To  the  scientist  and  religion- 
ist alike,  the  story  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  will  always  be 
of  abiding  interest. 

Judge  Richards,  thorough  student,  able  lawyer,  and 
Christian  gentleman,  portrays,  according  to  his  light, 
the  setting  of  the  star  of  human  destiny,  radiant  wdth 
faith,  hope  and  love,  but  amid  the  darkness  of  a  cruci- 
fixion undeserved  and  unfairly  imposed  as  a  penalty 
wrought  by  passion  and  prejudice. 

And  Judge  Richards  believes  in  the  resurrection. 

The  East  Indian  savant,  Dr.  S.  Srinivasa  Aiyar, 
has  long  been  known  as  one  of  the  ablest  jurists  of 
his  day.  Since  his  manuscript  was  written,  he  has 
passed  to  the  Great  Beyond.  He  considered  carefully 
the   same   facts   as   did   Judge   Richards,   which   sur- 


rounded  the  trial  of  the  Nazarene,  but  he  viewed  these 
facts  in  a  different  Hght,  and  he  saw  them  along  dif- 
ferent lines.  In  his  discussion  of  the  question,  no- 
where can  be  found  a  word — a  sentence,  which  in  any 
way  may  be  construed  as  objectionable  to  Christian 
laiety  or  clergy.  His  is  a  classical,  close  analysis,  of 
the  legal  aspect  of  the  case.  Both  writers  are  widely 
known  for  their  analytical  minds,  philosophic  char- 
acters, and  judicial  temperaments.  Both  are  partic- 
ularly well  fitted  and  qualified  to  review  in  all  its  legal 
aspects  this  tragic  trial  of  all  ages. 

New  Orleans,  La.,  Chas.  E.  George. 

January,   191 5. 


THE    ILLEGALITY   OF 

THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 


The  Trial    of  Jesus. 

From  a  Jurist's  Standpoint. 

BY  HON.  JOHN  E.  RICHARDS,  ASSOCIATE  JUSTICE  OF  THE 
FIRST    DISTRICT    COURT    OF    APPEALS,    CALIFORNIA. 

THE  darkest  hour  in  all  the  history  of  the 
Hebrew  people,  between  the  death  of 
Moses  and  the  dawn  of  the  Christian 
era,  was  that  wherein  its  exiles  sat  down 
by  the  rivers  of  Babylon  and  uttered  that  lamentation 
for  their  loved  and  lost  Jerusalem,  which  is  written  in 
the  137th  Psalm.  But  out  of  that  dark  hour  the  dawn 
was  about  to  spring  of  another  and  notable  epoch  in 
the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel,  as  a  united  nation, 
in  the  land  of  their  forefathers,  Palestine.  When 
Babylon  fell  and  a  new  empire  had  its  rise  under  the 
victorious  armies  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  Cyrus 
the  Great  was  led  to  look  with  kindly  eyes  upon  the 
Hebrews,  and  was  presently  induced  to  favor  the  effort 
of  Ezra  the  Scribe  to  accomplish  the  return  of  the 
scattered  nation  to  their  ancient  home.     In  the  year 


10  THE   ILLEGALITY   OF 

458  B.  C.  an  expedition  set  out  for  Palestine  to  join 
the  fragment  of  the  tribe  of  Judiah  which  had  still  re- 
mained at  Jerusalem.  Twenty  years  later  Nehemiah, 
the  cupbearer  of  the  Persian  king,  with  an  additional 
company,  joined  Ezra  the  Scribe ;  and  through  the  ef- 
forts of  these  two  devoted  men  the  Judean  state  was 
reorganized  and  the  Jewish  hierarchy  re-established, 
which  continued  to  exist  until  Jerusalem  was  destroyed 
in  the  year  70  of  the  Christian  era. 

It  was  during  these  centuries  of  Jewish  history  that 
those  certain  classes,  parties,  sects  and  institutions 
came  into  being  which  furnish  the  actors  and  form  the 
setting  of  the  trials  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  before  the 
Jewish  Sanhedrin  and  before  Pontius  Pilate.  These 
were  chiefly  the  class  of  the  Scribes,  the  party  of  the 
Sadducees,  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the  institution 
of  the  Sanhedrin.  In  view  of  the  limitations  of  my 
time  and  the  amplitude  of  my  subject,  I  shall  assume 
that  you  are  already  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  ori- 
gin and  nature  of  these  several  classes,  parties  and 
sects,  the  distinctions  between  them,  and  the  relations 
of  sympathy  or  antipathy  which  they  bore  toward  each 
other  and  toward'  the  government  and  rulers  of  the 
Roman  Empire  in  its  dominion  over  Palestine  in  the 
time  of  Christ. 

In  order,  however,  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
constitution,  membership  and  action  of  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrin  in  the  great  trial  before  it,  and  which  is 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  ii 

presently  to  come  under  review,  it  is  essential  that  we 
should  have  in  our  minds  a  very  clear  and  definite  pic- 
ture of  the  Sadducees,  their  position,  their  principles, 
and  the  personnel  of  the  leading  members  of  their 
party  in  Jerusalem  when  the  trial  came  on.  The  Sad- 
ducees claimed  to  be  the  descendants  or  successors  of 
Zadoc,  the  head  of  a  priestly  house  of  the  time  of 
David.  During  the  centuries  after  Ezra  their  party 
rose  into  power  and  influence  in  Jewish  affairs,  chiefly 
through  their  adoption  of  the  principle  and  policy  that 
the  political  prestige  of  the  Jewish  state  was  to  be 
maintained  and  increased,  and  possibly  its  independ- 
ence attained  among  nations,  through  diplomacy  and 
statecraft  rather  than  through  rebellion,  or  the  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State.  Thus  it  was  that  during  the 
latter  centuries  of  Judean  history,  when  it  was  success- 
ively subject  to  the  overlordship  of  the  Syrians,  the 
Macedonians,  the  Egyptians  and  the  Romans,  the  Sad- 
ducees were  usually  held  in  esteem  by  the  foreign 
rulers,  and  were  given  the  places  of  dignity  and  power 
of  Judean  affairs.  This  was  especially  true  with  re- 
spect to  the  highest  and  most  sacred  office  which  a  Jew 
could  hold  in  Palestine,  the  office  of  High  Priest.  For 
a  thousand  years  before  the  Romans  under  Pompey 
extended  their  dominion  over  Judea,  the  office  of  High 
Priest  had  been  hereditary  and  held  for  life.  But  when 
Rome  had  become  overlord,  and  Augustus  had  ap- 
pointed Herod,  the  Edomite,  to  be  King  of  Judea,  the 


12  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

latter  assumed  the  right  to  make  and  unmake  High 
Priests  at  will ;  and  his  successors  claimed  and  exer- 
cised a  similar  right  and  power;  and,  since  the  Sad- 
ducees  had  diplomatically  maintained  an  attitude  of 
friendship  to  their  successive  rulers,  while  that  of  the 
Pharisees  had  been  strained,  if  not  hostile,  it  was  nat- 
ural that  Herod  and  his  successors  should  have  chosen 
their  appointees  to  this  sacred  office  from  the  Sad- 
ducean  party. 

In  the  year  7  A.  D.  Coponius,  the  Procurator,  ap- 
pointed one  Ananos,  or  Annas,  the  son  of  Seth,  an 
Alexandrian  Sadducee,  to  be  High  Priest  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  thus  laid  the  foundations  of  the  House  or 
High  Priestly  family  of  Annas,  which,  with  brief  and 
occasional  interruptions  in  the  terms  of  that  office,  held 
sway  in  and  about  the  Temple  for  the  next  fifty  }ears. 
Five  sons  of  Annas  were  High  Priests  during  that 
period,  and  his  son-in-law,  Caiaphas,  was  in  possession 
of  that  office  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  Jesus.  Profane 
history  has  clearly  and  minutely  described  the  crafty 
and  serpent-like  cunning  by  which  Annas  had  been  en- 
abled to  retain  this  coveted  dignity  within  the  control 
of  himself  and  his  family;  and  has  also  described  the 
rise  and  nature  of  the  Temple  Bazaars,  that  infamous 
system  of  traffic  in  the  sacrificial  offerings  of  the  Tem- 
ple, and  in  the  Temple  Tribute,  established  and  con- 
trolled by  the  sons  of  Annas,  which  was  a  source  of 
immense  wealth  to  that  family,  and  which  had  grown 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  13 

to  such  proportions  in  the  time  of  Jesus  as  to  make 
the  Temple,  in  very  truth,  a  "den  of  thieves." 

There  is  one  other  institution  which  we  should  have 
clearl}^  in  mind  as  we  approach  the  day  of  the  great 
trial.  That  is  the  Sanhedrin,  the  Supreme  Tribunal 
of  Jewish  judicature.  It  is  probable  that  this  great 
Council  of  the  Priests,  Scribes  and  Elders  of  the  Jew- 
ish state  had  its  inception  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  when 
the  foundations  of  the  Judean  theocracy  were  being 
laid.  It  was  held  to  be  a  revival  of  the  great  Council 
of  Moses,  consisting  of  seventy  of  the  priests  and 
elders  of  his  day;  and  thus,  with  the  High  Priest,  the 
number  of  seventy-one  composed  the  membership  of 
the  Sanhedrin.  The  name  Sanhedrin  is  from  the 
Greek  Sunedrion,  meaning  a  "sitting  together."  In 
the  time  of  its  zenith  in  point  of  power  and  purity 
during  the  rule  of  the  Maccabees,  the  Jewish  Sanhe- 
drin was  beyond  question  the  most  august  judicial 
tribunal  which  the  world  has  ever  known  before  or 
since.  In  the  number  of  its  members,  in  the  requisites 
of  learning,  courage,  character  and  impartiality  re- 
quired for  such  membership ;  in  the  nature  of  its  juris- 
prudence and  detail  of  its  procedure  it  surpassed  any 
like  assemblage  which  has  ever  administered  the  laws 
of  any  nation.  But  in  the  time  of  Jesus  the  Sanhedrin 
had  fallen  from  its  high  estate.  Upon  the  accession  of 
Herod  the  Great,  offended  at  the  attitude  of  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Sanhedrin  toward  his  schemes  to  rise 


14  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

into  power,  he  caused  forty-six  of  the  seventy-one 
members  of  that  body  to  be  slain,  and  filled  its  ranks 
with  creatures  of  his  own  choosing,  headed  by  a  High 
Priest  of  his  own  selection.  From  that  time  the  San- 
hedrin  became  the  instrument  of  whatever  cabal  was 
in  power  at  Jerusalem.  With  the  rise  of  the  House 
of  Annas  it  had  come  to  be  completely  under  the  con- 
trol of  that  family  and  of  their  associates,  including 
those  who,  at  intervals,  had  also  held  the  High  Prestly 
office  and  were  thus  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Sanhedrin. 
These,  together  with  a  few  others  of  its  membership 
who  were  allied  in  interest  with  the  family  of  Annas, 
were  of  sufficient  number  to  constitute  at  least  a  quo- 
rum of  the  Sanhedrin,  which  was  fixed  at  23.  At  the 
very  time  when  the  trial  of  Jesus  occurred,  if  we  may 
credit  Josephus,  the  Talmud  and  other  Jewish  writ- 
ings, the  Sanhedrin  was  dominated  by  this  High 
Priestly  cabal  to  such  an  extent  that  its  meetings  were 
no  longer  held  in  the  Liskath  Hazedith,  or  Hall  of 
Hewn  Stones,  its  proper  and  legal  place  of  meeting 
within  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  Temple  enclosure, 
but  were  convened  in  the  Temple  Bazaars,  or  in  the 
Palace  of  the  High  Priest,  and  were  attended  chiefly 
by  the  members  of  this  High  Priestly  clique  or  council. 
There  is  one  other  fact  or  condition  which  should  be 
recalled  to  your  minds  before  we  enter  upon  the  de- 
tails of  the  trial  itself.  That  is  the  Messianic  Expec- 
tation.    I  must  again  assume  that  you  are  familiar 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  '    15 

with  the  history  and  state  of  the  Messianic  hope 
among  the  Jews  at  that  particular  time,  and  also  with 
the  sort  of  a  Messiah  which  their  priests  and  scribes 
and  rulers,  the  expounders  of  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
had  themselves  conceived  and  taught  the  people  to  ex- 
pect, which  was  a  Messiah  who  was  to  be  the  founder 
of  an  earthly  kingdom  and  restorer  of  temporal  su- 
premacy, power,  and  prosperity  to  Israel.  This  ma- 
terial Messianic  hope  and  expectation  had  grown  into 
a  fever  of  intensity  with  the  impress  of  Roman  power, 
with  its  disregard  of  Jewish  pride  and  prejudices,  and 
with  the  growing  burden  of  Roman  exactions  in  the 
way  of  taxes.  Between  the  dates  of  the  birth  and 
death  of  Jesus  insurrections  and  revolts  had  frequently 
disturbed  the  peace  of  Palestine.  The  most  notable  of 
these  was  the  revolt  of  the  Zealots  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Judas  the  Gaulonite,  which  had  its  origin  in 
the  belief  on  the  part  of  its  fanatical  adherents  that  the 
time  was  so  ripe  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  that  a 
revolt  would  bring  to  pass  the  divine  event. 

Here  then  we  have  the  elements  from  which  our 
minds  may  form  a  picture  of  the  state  of  things  in 
Judea  in  the  year  2y  A.  D.  We  have  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple, their  political  independence  gone,  their  old  and 
pure  religion  degenerated  into  an  involved  network  of 
unspiritual  and  burdensome  observances  imposed  upon 
their  daily  life  by  their  priests,  scribes  and  rulers ; 
ground  down  to,  and  ofttimes  past,  the  limit  of  endur- 


i6  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

ance  by  Roman  taxes  on  the  one  hand  and  by  their 
Temple  tithes  and  tributes  on  the  other ;  dissatisfied, 
turbulent  and  hopeless,  save  only  for  their  Messianic 
expectation  of  a  divinely  sent  deliverer  from  their  op- 
pressors and  restorer  of  the  throne  and  kingdom  of 
David.  We  also  have  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  their 
teachers  and  exemplars  m  the  laws  and  ritual  of  their 
religion,  "blind  leaders  of  the  blind,"  proud,  haughty, 
selfish,  hypocritical  sticklers  for  a  ritual  out  of  which 
the  true  spirit  of  religion  had  almost  utterly  gone. 
There,  too,  were  the  Sadducees,  a  small  but  opulent 
body  of  politicians,  in  favor  with  the  Roman  rulers 
and  in  possession  of  the  Temple  offices  and  revenues, 
which  were  being  held  and  operated  through  a  system 
of  gigantic  graft  under  the  control  of  a  few  High 
Priestly  families  of  which  the  House  of  Annas  was  the 
head.  Commingle  these  elements  with  the  ingredient 
of  hatred,  the  Judeans  hating  the  Gallileans  for  their 
infusion  of  foreign  blood  and  for  their  want  of  regard 
for  the  extreme  ritual  of  the  Temple  service,  and  being 
hated  in  turn  for  their  arrogant  pride  by  the  Gallileans. 
The  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  hating  each  other, 
through  old  feuds  reaching  back  for  centuries,  and 
through  divergent  views  upon  questions  of  religious 
faith  and  observance;  and  these,  Jews,  Gallileans, 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  all  hating  in  their  heart  of 
hearts  their  Roman  rulers,  although  the  Sadducees 
disguised   their   hatred   under   the   hypocrisy  of  pre- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  17 

tended  regard  and  loyalty.  Truly  a  very  witch's  caul- 
dron of  baleful  and  poisonous  compounds  was  Pales- 
tine, and  especially  was  Jerusalem,  when  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth appears  upon  the  scene. 

Into  this  discordant,  desperate  and  turbulent  state  of 
Jewish  society  in  the  spring  of  2y  A.  D.  came  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  a  poor  and  unknown  carpenter  from  de- 
spised Gallilee,  and  from  a  town  out  of  which  Galli- 
leans  and  Jews  alike  thought  that  no-  good  thing  could 
come.  He  first  appeared  at  the  Jordan  during  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  was  there  hailed 
by  him  as  the  promised  Messiah,  the  Lamb  of  God, 
which  should  take  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  In 
April  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Pass- 
over; and,  entering  the  Temple,  saw  there  established 
and  in  the  full  flush  of  successful  operation  the  gigan- 
tic imposition  and  iniquity  of  the  Temple  Bazaars  of 
the  House  of  Annas.  Possibly  he  himself  had  been 
unable  to  present  a  pair  of  young  pigeons,  the  offering 
of  the  poor,  unless  he  should  buy  them  from  the 
keepers  of  these  bazaars  at  an  extortionate  price.  Pos- 
sibly he  had  found  himself  unable  to  exchange  his 
Gallilean  coins  for  the  half  shekel,  his  poll  tax  or 
Temple  tribute,  save  at  one  of  these  favored  money 
changers'  tables  in  the  Temple  at  more  than  the  right- 
ful rate  of  exchange.  Doubtless  with  that  deep  in- 
sight which  was  ever  his  he  saw  that  the  popular  heart 
was  filled  with  the  same  righteous  indignation  which 


i8  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

he  felt  at  these  extortionists  and  at  their  defilement  of 
the  Holy  Temple.  So,  with  sublime  self-confidence 
and  courage,  he  drove  the  dealers  of  doves  and  ani- 
mals and  the  money  changers  from  the  sacred  pre- 
cincts of  the  Temple;  and  because  his  courageous  act 
was  backed  by  popular  approval  neither  the  Temple 
traffickers  nor  their  principals,  the  sons  of  Annas, 
dared  to  oppose  or  resist  his  assault  upon  their  unholy 
trade.  But  they  hated  him  for  it  from  that  day  until 
his  death;  and  from  that  hour  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
foredoomed  to  destruction  by  the  Sadducees. 

From  the  Passover  at  Jerusalem  Jesus  went  forth 
upon  his  ministry,  preaching  that  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  was  at  hand,  and  doing  deeds  of  mercy  and 
love  to  those  most  needing  the  ministrations  of  mercy 
and  love,  without  regard  to  whether  the  recipients  were 
Jew,  or  Samaritan,  or  Gentile;  and  with  no  respect 
whatever  for  the  elaborate  ritual  for  days  and  deeds 
upon  which  Phariseeism  depended  for  its  hold  upon 
the  Hebrew  people,  for  its  very  life  as  a  Judean  sect; 
and  when  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees — for  most  of  the 
Scribes  were  Pharisees — protested  against  his  healing 
on  the  Sabbath  'day  or  against  his  disciples  eating  with 
unwashen  hands,  or  against  his  own  action  in  sitting 
at  meat  with  publicans  and  sinners,  he  pointed  the  un- 
erring finger  of  his  logic  and  scorn  at  their  ritual  of 
observances  out  of  which  the  spirit  of  true  religion 
had  utterly  gone;  and  henceforth  the  Pharisees  hated 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  19 

him  and  plotted  his  destruction,  because  they  clearly 
foresaw  that  either  Jesus  must  die  or  Phariseeism 
must  perish. 

And  so,  at  various  times  during  the  brief  period  of 
Jesus'  ministry,  the  Pharisees  and  the  vSadducees  had 
sought  his  life.  At  the  Feast  of  the  Tabernacle  six 
months  before  his  last  and  fatal  Passover,  and  just 
after  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  the  High 
Priestly  Council  of  the  Sanhedrin  resolved  upon  his 
death  because  of  the  fact  that  in  Lazarus'  resurrection 
they  saw  that  a  fatal  blow  had  been  dealt  to  Sad- 
duceeism,  through  its  disproof  of  their  favorite  tenet 
that  there  was  no  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Then  it 
was  that  the  High  Priest  Caiaphas  conceived  the 
crafty  subterfuge  that  Jesus  was  a  breeder  of  sedition, 
and  declared  that  "it  was  better  that  one  man  should 
die  than  that  the  whole  people  should  perish."  From 
that  day  forth  the  deadly  resolve  of  the  High  Priestly 
Council  only  awaited  the  appropriate  day  and  hour  to 
be  carried  into  effect. 

On  Sunday  morning,  9th  Nisan,  or  about  April  4, 
A.  D.  30,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  his  ministry  almost  com- 
pleted, came  up  to  Jerusalem  to  lay  the  final  founda- 
tions of  his  kingdom  and  church.  He  knew  before- 
hand that  he  was  coming  to  his  predetermined  death, 
and  he  knew  the  manner  of  his  dying;  yet,  as  was  his 
right,  he  entered  Jerusalem  as  a  king  and,  amid  the 
accompanying  multitude  waving  branches  and  palms 


20  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

and  singing  the  Great  Hallel,  "Hozannah !  Blessed  is 
he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  His  action 
in  thus  entering  Jerusalem  as  a  popular  idol  was  in 
itself  a  slight  and  affront  to  the  rulers  of  the  Jews; 
and  hence,  on  the  following  day  and  the  next  two 
days,  he  was  made  the  subject  of  every  form  of  subtle 
attack  which  the  wit  of  the  Scribes,  the  Lawyers,  the 
Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  could  devise.  To  their 
demand  that  he  show  a  sign  from  Heaven  of  his  au- 
thority, he  responded  with  the  question,  "The  preach- 
ing of  John,  was  it  from  Heaven  or  of  men?"  and 
utterly  confounded  his  cowardly  questioners.  To  an- 
other set  of  antagonists  seeking  to  enmesh  him  in  a 
dispute  with  the  Roman  authorities  with  their  question 
about  the  tribute  money,  he  responds  with  that  sublime 
declaration  defining  the  separate  functions  of  church 
and  state,  "Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  and 
again  they  are  confounded.  Then  come  the  Sadducees 
with  their  entrapping  question  as  to  the  resurrection, 
to  which  Jesus  gives  the  equally  sublime  and  equally 
silencing  answer  that  "In  Heaven  there  is  neither  mar- 
riage nor  the  giving  in  marriage,  but  its  occupants 
are  as  the  angels  in  Heaven."  Then  rose  the  Scribes 
to  ask  the  question  born  of  their  fine-spun  sophistries, 
"Which  is  the  greatest  commandment?"  and  to  receive 
the  final  crushing  reply  in  that  sublimest  of  all  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  21 

with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all 
thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment. 
And  the  second  is  like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  law  and  the  Prophets."  With  this 
crushing  rebuke  of  the  refinements  and  sophistries 
of  the  Scribes  the  questioning  ceased  on  the  part 
of  his  enemies;  and  then  Jesus  became  the  ques- 
tioner. His  first  question  puts  in  issue  the  whole 
subject  of  the  Messiahship  and  its  nature.  He  says, 
"What  think  ye  of  the  Messiah,  whose  son  is  he?" 
They  answer,  "The  son  of  David,"  That  is  to  say, 
the  successor  and  restorer  of  David's  earthly  throne. 
Jesus  responded,  "Not  so,  else  why  should  David  call 
him  Lord?"  That  is  to  say,  the  Messiah  is  to  be  spir- 
itually the  son  of  God,  and  his  kingdom  is  to  be  spir- 
itual and  is  to  be  the  Kingdom  of  God.  And  hav- 
ing said  this,  and  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people  he 
turned  upon  his  questioners  with  that  scathing  denun- 
ciation of  their  whole  unspiritual  attitude  toward  the 
things  of  truth  and  righteousness  and  God,  which  has 
never  been  equaled  in  all  the  literature  of  excoriation, 
and  which  you  will  find  in  Matt,  xxiii,  13,  39,  begin- 
ning, "Woe  unto  you  Scribes,  Pharisees,  hypocrites." 
Thus  did  Jesus  fill  the  cup  of  his  offending  to  its 
overflow. 

On   Thursday   morning  the   Council   of  the   Chief 
Priests  and  Scribes  and  Elders  met  in  the  Court  of 


THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

the  Palace  of  Caiaphas,  the  High  Priest,  and  took 
counsel  how  they  should  put  him  to  death  "by  subtlety 
becau.^e  they  feared  the  people."  Thus,  as  we  shall 
see,  the  arrest,  the  trial  antl  the  execution  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  had  its  very  inception  in  illegality.  Ihe  High 
Court  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  no  place  for  conspirators 
and  conspiracies.  It  possessed  none  of  the  functions 
of  a  modern  grand  jury,  and  had  no  right  or  power 
to  originate  prosecutions.  Like  every  other  court  of 
justice  worthy  of  the  name,  its  only  function  was  to 
receive  accusations,  issue  processes  of  arrest,  and  try 
accused  persons  impartially,  and  in  accordance  with 
those  forms  of  law  which  are  framed  for  the  protec- 
titjii  of  the  innocent  as  well  as  for  the  punishment  of 
the  guilty.  This  was  especially  true  under  the  rules 
of  ]^rc)cedure  which  governed  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin. 
The  second  illegal  step  followed  hard  upon  the  first. 
While  the  conspirators  are  in  session  Judas  appears 
with  his  offer  to  betray  his  Master.  Judas,  if  he  was 
anything,  was  the  companion,  accessory  and  accom- 
plice of  Jesus  m  all  that  he  had  said  and  done.  Under 
our  law  an  accomplice  may  become  the  accuser,  the 
minister  and  agent  of  justice  in  the  arrest  of  criminals 
and  the  punishment  of  crime,  but  it  was  not  thus  un- 
der the  Jewish  law.  The  accomplice  as  an  instrument 
of  justice,  as  either  accuser  or  betrayer,  had  absolutely 
no  place  in  Jewish  criminal  jurisprudence.  Accord- 
in.g  to  the  refined  strictitude  of  their  law,  the  stream 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  23 

of  justice  must  not  be  defiled  by  the  use  of  an  evil 
instrument  at  any  point  of  its  course.  Judas  Iscariot 
was,  therefore,  lej^all)-  of  no  use  to  the  ministers  of 
the  law,  and  his  eniijloyment  by  the  High  Priestly  con- 
spirators as  their  agent  in  accomplishing  the  arrest  of 
Jesus,  and  his  action  as  such,  constituted  the  second 
illegal  step  in  the  proceedings. 

The  third  illegal  step  in  the  case  of  Jesus  of  Naza-' 
reth  was  that  his  arrest  was  accomplished  at  night. 
On  that  fateful  Thursday  afternoon  and  evening  oc- 
curred one  of  those  striking  antitheses  in  human  con- 
duct which  history  occasionally  presents  to  our  view. 
While  the  High  Priestly  Council  was  sitting  in  the 
house  of  Caiaphas,  engaged  in  their  dark  and  illegal 
conspiracy  against  the  life  of  the  noblest  and  purest 
personality  which  has  ever  loomed  above  the  mists  of 
time,  Jesus  and  his  disciples  were  preparing  to  eat  the 
Passover  supper  and  to  institute  there  the  communion, 
that  most  spiritual  and  precious  of  all  the  ordinances 
of  the  Christian  church ;  and  during  the  course  of 
which  Jesus,  with  divine  humility,  exemplified  the 
merit  of  service  and  delivered  that  tender  message  of 
love  unto  the  restless  heart  of  universal  humanity, 
which  begins,  "Let  not  your  hearts  be  troubled :  ye  be- 
lieve in  God,  believe  also  in  me,"  and  which  ends  in 
that  passionate  intercessory  prayer  which,  in  the  sub- 
limity of  its  pathos  and  tenderness,  is  unequaled  in  all 
the  annals  of  human  speech.     It  was  late  that  night 


24  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

when  Jesus  went  forth  as  was  his  wont,  unto  the 
Mount  of  OUves ;  and  there,  about  michiight,  his  arrest 
was  accompHshed  with  the  aid  of  Judas  and  by  the 
Temple  Guard.  This  was  illegal.  Under  the  Jewish 
law  no  step  in  the  prosecution  of  a  person  accused  of 
a  crime  worthy  of  death  could  be  taken  at  night,  un- 
less the  arrest  was  made  while  the  criminal  was  in  the 
very  act  of  committing  the  crime.  When  Jesus  was 
thus  arrested  and  bound  he  was  primarily  taken,  not 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  but  before  Annas,  the  ex-High 
Priest,  to  be  questioned,  so  the  record  states,  "as  to 
his  disciples  and  doctrine."  This  was  unlawful  for 
two  chief  reasons.  First,  according  to  the  Jewish  law 
no  member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  nor  any  other  magistrate, 
could  singly  exercise  any  judicial  function.  The  very 
lowest  Hebrew  court  consisted  of  three  judges,  and 
this  was  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Moses,  which 
said,  "Be  not  a  sole  judge,  for  there  is  no  sole  judge 
but  one;"  and  its  second  ground  of  illegality  was  this: 
that  in  the  Jewish  law  the  same  salutary  provision 
existed  which  exists  to-day  in  our  own  law,  that  an 
accused  person  could  not  be  required  to  be  a  witness 
against  himself.  Why,  then,  was  Jesus  first  taken  be- 
fore Annas?  I  am  satisfied  that  the  answer  is  to  be 
found  in  the  operations  of  human  nature.  When 
Thucydides  had  finished  his  history  of  Greece  he  said, 
"This  history  of  Greece  will  be  the  history  of  the 
world  so  long  as  human  nature  remains  the  same." 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  25 

Applying  this  principle  to  the  conditions  which  we 
have  found  existing  in  Jerusalem :  a  priestly  clique 
controlling  the  politics  of  the  Temple  and  city ;  a  gigan- 
tic system  of  graft  in  money  changing  and  in  the  sale 
of  sacrificial  offerings  netting  enormous  revenues  to 
a  few  priestly  families ;  would  we  not  naturally  expect 
to  find  a  master  mind  controlling  the  organization;  a 
chief,  a  leader;  or,  to  use  the  modern  term,  "a  boss"; 
and  we  do  find  that  master  intellect,  whose  genius  for 
intrigue,  and  w-hose  inordinate  lust  for  gain,  had 
formed  the  High  Priestly  cabal  and  organized  the 
Temple  Bazaars,  in  the  person  of  Annas,  the  Alex- 
andrian Jew.  Annas  was  the  "boss"  of  Jerusalem  and 
of  the  Sanhedrin ;  and  it  was  therefore  natural  that  to 
Annas  the  understrappers  of  the  combine,  the  Temple 
Guard,  should  take  Jesus  as  soon  as  they  had  accom- 
plished his  arrest.  This  touch  of  human  nature  seems 
very  modern  indeed. 

When  Jesus  w^as  taken  before  Annas  the  latter  un- 
dertook, illegally  as  we  have  seen,  to  question  him 
as  to  his  disciples  and  his  doctrine.  In  declining  to 
be  entrapped  by  this  illegal  inquiry  Jesus  planted  him- 
self squarely  upon  his  rights  as  a  Hebrew  citizen  un- 
der the  Jewish  law.  He  said,  "I  have  spoken  openly 
to  the  world ;  I  taught  in  the  Synagogues  and  in  the 
Temple  where  all  the  Jews  come  together,  and  in  se- 
cret spake  I  nothing  :  why  askest  thou  me  ?  Ask  them 
that  have  heard  me."   That  is  to  say  in  our  modern  legal 


26  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

phraseology,  "I  decline  to  be  a  witness  against  myself, 
and  I  demand  that  you  produce  the  witnesses  against 
me  as  the  law  requires."  Thereupon,  we  are  told,  one 
of  the  sychophants  of  the  Temple  Guard  struck  Jesus 
in  the  face,  saying,  "Answerest  thou  the  High  Priest 
so?"  This  is  another  touch  of  nature,  proving  the 
verity  of  the  Gospel  story  in  depicting  the  degenerate 
spirit  and  condition  of  the  times.  To  the  insult  and 
outrage  of  the  blow,  Jesus,  with  simple  dignity  and 
direct  reference  to  his  legal  rights  as  a  citizen,  replied : 
"If  I  have  spoken  evil,  testify  to  the  evil;  but  if  well, 
why  smitest  thou  me?" 

We  are  then  told  that  Annas  sent  Jesus  bound  to 
the  House  of  Caiaphas,  the  High  Priest,  where  the 
Chief  Priests  and  Scribes  and  Elders  were  gathered 
together.  This  was  supposed  to  be  the  Sanhedrin  in 
session.  How  many  of  the  yi  members  of  that  once 
august  tribunal  were  present  we  have  no  exact  means 
of  knowing,  but  that  certain  members  were  absent  may 
be  fairly  certain.  As  to  one  of  the  absent  members  of 
the  Sanhedrin  this  much  may  be  said :  It  may  be  taken 
to  be  a  certainty  that  Gamalial,  grandson  of  Hillel,  the 
greatest  and  purest  lawyer  of  his  time  and  a  stickler 
for  the  strictest  regard  for  legal  forms  and  procedure 
in  the  sessions  of  the  Sanhedrin,  was  not  there.  He 
surely  would  not  have  consented  to  attend  an  illegal 
session  of  the  Sanhedrin ;  and  that  this  session  of  the 
Sanhedrin  was  utterly  and  grossly  illegal  for  several 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  27 

reasons  we  shall  presently  see.  No  session  of  any  court 
could,  under  the  Jewish  law,  be  convened  at  night. 
The  reason  which  the  Rabbis  gave  for  this  seems 
whimsical,  but  after  all  it  has  a  grain  of  wisdom  in  it. 
A  legal  trial,  they  said,  was  like  a  medical  diagnosis 
of  a  patient's  case;  and,  like  such  diagnosis,  should  be 
held  in  the  daylight,  where  every  aspect  of  the  case 
can  be  clearly  seen.  In  harmony  with  this  rule  the 
sessions  of  the  Sanhedrin  could  only  be  legally  con- 
vened after  the  morning  sacrifice  at  sunrise  and  must 
close  at  sunset.  This  night  session  was,  therefore, 
illegal.  But  it  was  unlawful  for  another  reason  deep- 
ly rooted  in  the  Jewish  ritual.  No  session  of  any 
court  could  be  held  upon  a  Feast  day,  and  especially 
upon  a  Feast  day  of  such  sacred  significance  as  the 
day  of  the  Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  This  was  the 
morning  of  that  day.  It  had  begun  at  the  previous 
sunset,  in  accordance  with  the  Jewish  method  of  meas- 
uring days,  a  method  which  was  as  ancient  as  the  time 
when  the  Book  of  Genesis  was  written,  wherein,  you 
will  recall,  it  is  recorded  that  "The  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  first  day."  But  the  Jewish  law  in 
its  strictitude  went  even  further  than  this,  for  it  pro- 
hibited the  Sanhedrin  from  entering  upon  the  trial  of 
a  criminal  case  on  the  day  before  their  Sabbath,  which, 
as  you  know,  was  Saturday ;  and  this,  for  the  reason 
that  the  execution  of  a  capital  sentence  followed  im- 
mediately upon  the  judgment,  and  could  neither  be 


28  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

conducted  on  the  Sabbath  nor  could  it  be  postponed 
over  the  Sabbath.  Hence  no  criminal  trial  of  a  capital 
case  could  legally  be  entered  upon  on  Friday.  This 
night  session  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  being  held  on 
Friday  morning,  before  the  hour  of  the  morning  sac- 
rifice, upon  a  feast  day,  and  on  the  day  before  the 
Sabbath,  and  was  for  all  these  reasons  and  for  others 
yet  to  be  noted  illegal.  But  let  us  return  to  the  House 
of  the  High  Priest  Caiaphas,  and  take  note  of  those 
who  were  present  or  absent  there.  Nicodemus,  the 
ruler  or  elder,  who  at  that  first  Passover  had  sought 
Jesus  by  night  to  learn  of  things  divine,  was  surely 
not  there ;  for  he  could  hardly  have  voted  Jesus  guilty 
of  blasphemy  and  worthy  of  death,  and  yet  within 
twenty-four  hours  thereafter  have  furnished  a  costly 
abundance  of  spices  to  embalm  him  for  his  burial ;  nor 
could  Joseph  of  Arimathea  have  been  there,  for  not 
only  does  the  Scripture  expressly  state  that  he  had  not 
consented  to  the  death  of  Jesus,  but  he  it  was  who 
bravely  begged  the  body  of  Jesus  from  Pilate  in  order 
that  he  might  give  it  sepulture  in  his  own  tomb.  In- 
deed, we  may  safely  say  that  not  one  of  that  class  of 
the  membership  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  which  Gamaliel, 
the  upright  lawyer,  and  Joseph  and  Nicodemus,  the 
pious  elders,  belonged,  were  present  at  this  illegal 
night  session  of  the  Sanhedrin,  for  all  who  were  pres- 
ent, as  we  shall  see,  coincided  in  the  judgment  of 
conviction. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 


29 


Who,  then,  were  present?  There  were  at  least  23 
members  present,  for  that  was  the  quorum.  Let  us  re- 
construct the  membership  of  the  Sanhedrin  as  it  was 
on  that  fateful  night,  as  profane  history  gives  us  their 
names : 


(a)  Caiaphas 
I.  Annas 


2.  Eleazcr 

3.  Theophilus 

4.  Jonathan 

5.  Matthias 

6.  Ananus 

7.  Eleazer 

8.  Joaser 

9.  Simon  Cantharus 

10.  Ismael  Ben  Phabi 


II.  Simon    Ben    Cantharus 


1 2.   John 


The  High  Priest. 

The    Ex-High    Priest    and 

head    of    the    House    of 

Annas. 


\  The  five  sons  of  Annas. 


]  Three   sons   of   the   Ex- 

I  High  Priest  Simon  Boe- 

I  thus,     the     Alexandrian, 

\  who  had  sold  his  beauti- 

I  ful  daughter  to  the  lech- 

1  erous  Herod  the  Great  for 

J  the  High  Priesthood. 

Also  an  ex-High  Priest, and 
the  handsomest  man  of  his 
time,  whose  effeminate 
love  of  luxury  was  the 
scandal  of  his  age. 

Another  Ex-High  Priest, 
whom  the  Talmud  ridi- 
cules for  his  hypocrisies. 

A  kinsman  of  Annas  and  a 
former  Hisfh  Priest. 


30 


THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 


13.  Alexander 


14.  Ananias  Ben  Nebedeus 


15.  Helcias 


16.  Sceva 


17.  Isachar  Ben  Keifar 
Barchi 


A  Priestly  partner  of  the 
sons  of  Annas  in  the  Tem- 
ple traffic.  He  it  was  who 
loaned  Herod  Agrippa 
200,000  pieces  of  silver. 

He  who  afterwards  as  High 
Priest  delivered  Paul  to 
Felix,  and  who,  according 
to  the  Talmud,  was  noted 
for  his  excessive  gluttony. 

Keeper  of  the  Temple 
Treasury,  who  gave  Judas 
the  30  pieces  of  silver. 

An  Ex-High  Priest  and  the 
father  of  those  seven  sons 
who  gave  themselves  up 
to  witchcraft  according  to 
Acts  xix,  13,  14. 
Lastly  there  was 

Of  whom  the  Talmud  says, 
"Let  Isachar  Ben  Keifar 
Barchi  depart  from  here, 
who  polluteth  himself  and 
profaneth  the  victims  con- 
secrated of  God." 


We  have  thus  certainly  identified  18  of  the  High 
Priestly  membership  of  the  Sanhedrin  who  were  pres- 
ent during  the  trial  of  Jesus.  They  sat  in  a  semi- 
circle, the  prisoner  in  the  midst. 

Let  us  picture  Jesus  as  he  stood  there,  in  the  word 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  31 

painting  of  W.   W.  Story,  the  great  American  poet 
and  artist,  in  his  "Roman  Lawyer  in  Jerusalem" : 

"Tall,  slender,  not  erect,  a  little  bent. 

Brows  arched  and  dark,  a  high  ridged,  lofty  head, 

Thin  temples,  veined  and  delicate ;  large  eyes. 

Sad,  very  serious,  seeming  as  it  were 

To  look  beyond  you,  and  whene'er  he  spoke 

Illumined  with  an  inner  lamping  light ; 

At  times  too  gleaming  with  a  strange  wild  fire, 

When  taunted  by  the  rabble  in  the  streets; 

A  Jewish  face,  complexion  pale  but  dark ; 

Thin,  high-cut  nostrils,  quivering  constantly ; 

Long  nose,  full  lips,  hands  tapering,  full  of  veins; 

His  movements  nervous,  as  he  walked  he  seemed 

Scarcely  to  heed  the  persons  whom  he  passed. 

And  for  the  most  part  gazed  upon  the  ground ; 

Or  lifting  up  his  eyes,  seemed  as  it  were 

To  look  far  through  you  to  some  world  beyond." 

The  trial  at  once  begins ;  and  here  we  note  another 
essential  infirmity  of  this  tribunal  at  the  very  incep- 
tion of  the  trial.  It  consists  in  the  prejudice  of  its 
members  towards  the  accused.  The  Hebrew  law  re- 
quired absolute  freedom  from  all  interest  in  the  result 
of  a  trial,  and  the  entire  absence  of  all  prejudice 
against  the  accused.  Yet  here  was  Jesus  surrounded 
by  a  hedge  of  hostile  judges,  already  determined  upon 
his  death.  Notwithstanding  this  vital  disqualification, 
the  trial  of  Jesus  proceeded  before  this  scant  and  hos- 
tile and  unlawfully  convened  quorum  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin.     We  are  told  by  Scripture  that  "They  sought 


32  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

false  witness  against  Jesus,  but  found  it  not,  though 
many  false  witnesses  came.''  At  length  two  came 
who  testified  that  Jesus  said :  "I  am  able  to  destroy 
the  Temple  of  God  and  to  build  it  in  three  days." 
But  the  record  further  says  that  "Not  even  did  these 
witnesses  agree  together."  These  statements  of  the 
record  are  significant  for  several  reasons.  Under  the 
Jewish  law,  as  far  back  even  as  the  time  of  Daniel — 
for  you  will  doubtless  recall  the  case  of  People  vs. 
Suzannah — no  person  could  be  convicted  of  a  capital 
offense  except  by  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses  to 
the  direct  charge,  who,  in  all  respects,  agreed  in  their 
testimony;  any  disagreement  between  the  two  wit- 
nesses entitled  the  accused  to  an  acquittal,  and  he  could 
not  even  be  questioned  with  respect  to  the  testimony 
of  these  witnesses ;  and  this  also  discloses  the  next 
illegal  step  in  the  course  of  this  mockery  of  a  trial, 
when  Caiaphas,  the  High  Priest,  in  violation  of  the 
law  above  quoted,  said  to  Jesus :  "Answerest  thou 
nothing?  What  is  it  these  witnesses  say  against 
thee?"  Jesus,  standing  strictly  upon  his  rights  as  a 
Jew  under  the  law,  is  said  to  have  "answered  not." 
The  case  of  the  prosecution  had  utterly  failed.  The 
prisoner  stood  entitled  to  an  acquittal  under  the  law. 
Then  it  was  that  Caiaphas,  defying  every  principle  of 
Jewish  justice,  and  violating  a  fundamental  rule  of 
procedure  which  forbade  that  any  member  of  the  San- 
hedrin  should  be  an  accuser,  put  to  Jesus  a  crucial 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  33 

question  which  he  had  no  lawful  right  to  ask  or  to 
have  answered ;  and  he  even  put  it  in  the  form  the 
Sanhedrin  had  no  right  to  require  of  any  of  an  oath, 
and  which  certainly  could  not  legally  be  required  of 
an  accused  person ;  he  says :  "I  adjure  thee  by  the 
living  God  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God?"  This  question 
Jesus  could  have  refused  to  answer  under  the  law ; 
but  it  was  the  one  question  of  all  questions  which 
Jesus  would  not  refuse  to  answer;  and  hence,  know- 
ing all  the  consequences  of  his  reply.  Yes;  knowing 
that  "his  hour  had  come,"  with  infinite  courage,  with 
sublime  devotion  to  the  divine  truth  which  underlay 
his  mission  and  life  on  earth,  he  answered :  "Thou 
hast  said:  I  am";  and  thereupon,  we  read,  the  High 
Priest  "rent  his  clothes"  and  exclaimed :  "He  hath 
spoken  blasphemy.  What  further  need  have  we  of 
witnesses ;  behold  now  ye  hath  heard  the  blasphemy, 
what  think  ye?"  and  they  all  answered  and  said:  "He 
is  worthy  of  death!" 

Let  us  dwell  for  a  moment  upon  the  several  gross 
irregularities  which  this  brief  record  discloses.  The 
High  Priest  "rent  his  clothes."  It  was  the  custom 
among  the  Jews  to  show  their  horror  and  detestation 
of  blasphemy  by  rending  their  clothes;  but  from  this 
custom  the  High  Priest  was  expressly  excluded,  for 
the  reason  that  the  garments  of  the  High  Priest  were 
the  sacred  symbols  of  his  exalted  office,   and   were 


34  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

under  no  circumstances  to  be  rent.  In  the  next  place, 
the  High  Priest  had  no  right,  at  that  stage  of  the  trial, 
to  express  any  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  accused ;  for,  under  the  Jewish  law,  no  member  ot 
the  Sanhedrin  could  be  heard  to  say  anything  against 
an  accused  person  until  someone  of  their  number  had 
spoken  in  his  favor;  and  even  in  the  most  desperate 
cases  the  vote  could  not  be  taken  until  some  memlDer 
of  the  tribunal  had  summed  up  the  case  in  his  favor. 
Jjut  aside  from  this  error,  the  High  Priest  had  not  the 
right  to  vote  or  utter  his  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the 
accused  until  every  other  member  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
present  at  the  trial,  had  recorded  his  vote,  beginning 
at  the  youngest  and  proceeding  in  the  order  of  age ; 
and  this  for  the  reason  that  the  younger  members  of 
the  tribunal  might  not  be  influenced  in  their  judgment 
by  the  opinions  of  the  High  Priest  or  the  elder  mem- 
bers thereof. 

But  the  High  Priest,  by  rending  his  clothes  and 
prematurely  announcing  his  judgment,  violated  the 
Jew'ish  law  in  a  yet  more  essential  regard.  The  de- 
fendant had  a  right  to  be  heard  and  to  produce  wit- 
nesses and  proofe  in  his  own  behalf.  This  right  was 
denied  him ;  and  in  the  case  at  bar  and  in  respect  to 
the  offense  of  which  this  particular  prisoner  stood 
accused  this  denial  was  a  most  vital  and  essential  vio- 
lation of  law.  The  charge  was  blasphemy.  It  con- 
sisted, if  at  all,  in  the  answer  and  statement  of  Jesus 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  35 

that  he  was  "The  Christ,"  or,  in  other  words,  the 
Messiah  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  promise  and  hope.  If 
he  was  the  Messiah  he  was  the  "Son  of  God,"  as  the 
Jews  had  for  centuries  interpreted  that  prophetic 
phrase.  When,  therefore,  Jesus  asserted  that  he  was 
the  Christ  he  could  not  be  guilty  of  blasphemy  until 
liis  assertion  were  proved  untrue ;  or,  at  the  very  least, 
until  he  had  been  given  the  opportunity  to  prove  in 
his  own  behalf  the  truth  of  his  assertion.  We,  who 
read  the  whole  Scriptures  in  the  clear  light  of  our 
modern  perception,  know  how  fully,  how  completely, 
how  convincingly  the  proofs  of  the  divine  nature,  mis- 
sion and  ministry  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  were  at  hand 
and  available  to  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  his 
trial,  had  they  the  will  to  seek  or  the  spirit  to  receive 
the  proof.  There  were  the  prophecies  and  promises  of 
their  own  sacred  Scriptures  all  pointing  an  unerring 
finger  at  the  lonely  figure  standing  in  their  midst; 
there  was  the  indisputable  history  of  his  family,  his 
birth  place,  his  birth,  his  residence,  his  life,  all  in  per- 
fect accord  with  prophecy  and  in  harmony  with  the 
spiritual  requisites  of  the  Messianic  personage  who 
was  to  come.  But  the  Sanhedrin,  as  we  have  seen  it 
constituted,  had  no  eye  or  ear  or  heart  for  these  things ; 
and  hence,  in  utter  violation  of  right  and  law  and 
reason,  with  one  voice,  they  adjudged  him  guilty  of 
blasphemy  and  worthy  of  death. 

But  this  judgment  thus  illegally  arrived  at  was  not 


36  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

yet  sufficient  under  their  procedure  to  be  final,  or  to 
accomplish  their  deadly  purpose.  The  Jewish  law  re- 
quired a  dual  trial,  upon  separate  days,  of  every  per- 
son accused  of  a  capital  crime.  Hence  we  find  the 
accurate  Gospel  record  showing  that  the  Sanhedrin 
adjourned  to  meet  again  in  the  day  time  and  after  the 
morning  sacrifice.  The  second  trial  should,  in  accord- 
ance with  their  law%  have  been  conducted  with  all  of 
the  formalities  of  the  first  trial,  and  with  all  of  the 
legal  rights  of  the  accused  person  preserved.  But  ap- 
parently the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  had  resolved 
upon  the  conviction  of  Jesus  with  only  the  flimsiest 
pretext  of  compliance  with  the  forms  of  law.  There 
were  many  reasons  for  this  desperate  haste,  which  we 
have  not  time  to  review  here;  but  one  of  the  chief 
causes  of  their  unlawful  expedition  consisted  in  the 
fact  that  they  must  yet  secure  the  judgment  of  the 
Roman  Procurator  before  they  could  accomplish  the 
death  of  their  victim;  and  they  must  do  this  before 
that  day  ended,  for  the  morrow  was  their  Sabbath, 
and  no  offender  could  lawfully  undergo  execution  upon 
the  Sabbath;  nor  could  a  Sabbath  day  intervene  be- 
tween the  condemnation  and  death  of  a  malefactor 
without  rendering  the  judgment  void. 

Hence,  in  the  early  hours  of  Friday,  after  the  morn- 
ing sacrifice,  the  Sanhedrin  reassembled,  and  abandon- 
ing every  other  accusation  against  Jesus,  went  imme- 
diately to  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  the  High  Priest 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  37 

repeating  the  question,  "Art  thou  the  Christ?"  To 
this  question,  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  informs  us  that 
Jesus  made  at  first  the  significant  reply,  "If  I  tell  you, 
ye  will  not  believe;  and  if  I  ask  you  ye  will  not  an- 
swer." Here  we  have  stated  in  a  sentence  the  exact 
law  and  irresistible  logic  of  the  situation.  The  San- 
hedrm  legally  and  logically  were  bound  either  to  accept 
the  statement  of  Jesus  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  or  else 
they  were  bound  to  disprove  it.  But  Jesus  knew  they 
would  do  neither.  And  hence  again  the  High  Priest 
puts  the  question,  "Art  thou  the  Son  of  God?"  Jesus, 
with  the  same  sublime  faith  and  courage  as  before, 
replies,  "I  am."  And  again  he  is  immediately  and  il- 
legally voted  worthy  of  death. 

Having  thus  doubly  adjudged  their  predestined  vic- 
tim to  death,  the  priestly  conspirators  found  themselves 
confronted  with  a  stubborn  fact  standing  in  the  way 
of  his  execution.  Two  years  before  this  time  the 
power  over  life  and  death  had  been  taken  away  from 
the  Sanhedrin  by  their  Roman  rulers  and  lodged  with 
the  Procurator.  It  was,  therefore,  essential  that  there 
should  be  a  Roman  trial  of  Jesus  before  he  could  be 
condemned  to  death.  Hence  it  now  became  necessary 
that  Jesus  should  be  taken  before  Pontius  Pilate  for  a 
further,  or  Roman  trial. 

What  was  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Procura- 
tor, and  who,  and  of  what  character  and  qualities,  w^as 
Pontius  Pilate?    The  Roman  Procurator  was  the  per- 


38  THE   ILLEGALITY   OF 

sonal  representative  of  the  Emperor,  with  all  of  the 
power  which  the  Emperor  himself  might  have  exer- 
cised if  personally  present.  The  Romans  were  the 
great  law-givers  of  their  age.  The  Code  of  Justinian 
constitutes  the  great  substratum  of  the  laws  of  Europe 
to-day.  An  elaborate  system  for  the  conduct  of  trials 
existed  at  this  time  throughout  the  Roman  Empire; 
but  this,  wdiile  followed  in  the  trial  of  Roman  citizens 
and  in  the  more  quiescent  provinces,  was  not  closely 
adhered  to  in  such  turbulent  states  as  Judea  in  the 
trial  of  accused  persons  who  were  not  Roman  citizens. 
The  Procurator  of  Judea  was  in  such  cases  largely 
left  to  his  own  discretion  as  to  procedure;  and  from 
his  judgment,  however  arbitrary,  there  was  no  appeal 
or  redress  except  in  the  way  of  a  complaint  to  the 
Emperor.  There  is  a  point  in  the  Roman  procedure 
which  we  must  especially  note  at  this  time.  It  was  the 
rule  that  when  the  Procurator  undertook  to  review  a 
case  over  which  the  Sanhedrin  had  original  jurisdic- 
tion, it  was  his  duty  to  proceed  along  the  lines  of  the 
Jewish  jurisprudence,  and  to  review  the  case  as  to  its 
conformity  to  their  procedure,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
hear  the  case  in  the  capacity  of  an  appellate  tribunal. 
It  was  also  the  custom  of  the  Procurator  when  an  accu- 
sation was  laid  before  him  to  first  interrogate  the  ac- 
cused person  apart,  or,  in  our  modern  terms,  to  hold 
a  preliminary  examination,  for  the  purpose  of  deter- 
mining  whether   there   was    sufficient    basis    for   the 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  39 

charge  to  warrant  either  a  review  of  the  Jewish  trial 
or  an  original  Roman  trial  of  the  cause. 

Bearing  these  two  points  in  mind,  let  us  bring  be- 
fore us  the  personality  of  the  Roman  Procurator. 
Pontius  Pilate  was,  according  to  the  quite  accurate 
identification  of  profane  history,  a  native  of  Seville  in 
Spain.  His  father,  Marcus  Pontius,  though  a  Span- 
iard, had  been  a  renegade  to  the  cause  of  his  country- 
men during  the  wars  by  which  Spain  had  been  con- 
quered by  Rome,  and  as  a  reward  for  such  service  had 
been  given  the  public  honor  of  being  presented  with 
the  javelin,  or  Pilatus,  which  entitled  him  to  add  the 
title  Pilatus  to  his  family  name.  His  son,  Pontius 
Pilate,  appears  to  have  followed  Germanicus  through 
the  German  campaign  with  enough  of  sycophancy,  if 
not  ui  distinction,  to  introduce  him  favorably  to  Roman 
society  upon  his  return  from  the  wars,  and  thus  enable 
him  to  become  the  successful  suitor  for  the  hand  of 
Claudia,  the  daughter  of  Julia,  and  granddaughter  of 
Augustus.  That  Julia  had  been  one  of  the  most  disso- 
lute and  shameless  women  of  her  age;  that  her  father 
Augustus,  on  account  of  her  lewdness  and  debaucheries, 
had  been  obliged  to  banish  her  from  Rome,  and  that 
her  daughter,  Claudia,  was  the  illegitimate  offspring 
of  an  intrigue  with  a  Roman  knight  during  the  period 
of  her  banishment,  mattered  not  to  the  son  of  the 
Spanish  renegade,  ambitious  of  promotion ;  so,  having 
won  the  favor  of  Tiberius  and  the  consent  of  Claudia, 


40  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

the  marriage  was  consummated;  and  immediately 
thereafter  Pilate  received  the  Emperor's  commission  as 
the  Procurator  of  Judea. 

In  order  at  this  point  to  gain  a  yet  clearer  concep- 
tion of  the  character  and  acts  of  Pilate,  it  is  necessary 
to  take  a  fleeting  glimpse  at  the  character  of  his  mas- 
ter, Tiberius. 

Tiberius  Csesar  was  the  most  morbid,  jealous  and 
capricious  tyrant  which  had,  thus  far,  donned  the  im- 
perial purple  as  Emperor  of  the  Roman  world.  The 
slightest  suggestion  of  treason  in  any  part  of  his  em- 
pire aroused  his  suspicious  temperament  to  intense 
activity.  Tacitus  records  52  cases  of  prosecutions  for 
treason  during  his  reign,  many  of  these  for  the  most 
flimsy  and  trivial  causes.  Such  being  the  character  of 
Tiberius,  and  such  being  the  origin  of  Pilate,  and  such 
being  the  relation  which  he  had  established  with  the 
Emperor  through  his  marriage  with  Claudia,  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  the  attitude  of  the  Procurator  of  Judea,  the 
scheming  sycophant  of  the  suspicious  Tiberius,  would 
be  the  same  as  that  of  his  jealous  and  capricious  mas- 
ter toward  any  person  suspected  of  treason.  Such  we 
find  to  have  been  the  precise  attitude  of  Pontius  Pilate 
during  the  nine  years  of  his  Procuratorship  to  the  date 
of  the  trial  of  Jesus.  On  three  several  occasions  he 
had  brought  liimself  into  hostile  relationship  with  the 
Jews  by  his  sycophantic  desire  to  make  a  display  of 
his  loyalty  to  Tiberius.     He  had  come  to  regard  the 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  41 

Jews  with  scornful  contempt,  and  yet  also  with  a  cer- 
tain feeling  of  fear  lest  they  should  by  some  complaint 
of  his  administration  lodged  at  Rome,  awaken  the  sus- 
picion of  Tiberius,  with  the  result  of  his  removal  from 
place  and  power.  That  these  apprehensions  on  the 
part  of  Pilate  were  well  grounded  we  learn  from 
Josephus,  who  relates  that  Pilate  in  fact  lost  his  posi- 
tion as  Procurator  through  just  such  a  complaint,  and 
that  wnthin  a  year  or  so  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus. 

It  was  from  Josephus  also  and  not  alone  from  the 
Scripture  record  that  we  learn  that  sycophancy  and 
vacillation  were  the  two  dominant  traits  of  Pilate's 
character;  and  we  shall  presently  see  how  perfectly  in 
accord  are  the  sacred  writers  and  the  Jewish  historian 
in  this  respect.  Such  was  the  Roman  Procurator ; 
such  w'as  the  personality  of  Pontius  Pilate  before 
whom  the  High  Priestly  conspirators  were  about  to 
take  Jesus  of  Nazareth  for  trial  upon  some  charge 
which  would  result  in  his  condemnation  to  death. 

It  was  the  custom  of  Pilate  to  reside  in  the  Palace 
of  Herod  the  Great  when  he  came  up  from  his  capital, 
Caesarea,  to  Jerusalem,  wdiich  he  was  wont  to  visit 
during  the  Jewish  festivals  in  order  to  see  that  peace 
was  maintained.  Let  us  follow  the  company  of  Jews 
having  Jesus  in  custody  to  the  Palace  of  Herod  during 
the  early  hours  of  this  Friday  morning  of  the  14th 
Xisan.  We  arrive  at  the  palace  gates;  and  just  here 
an  interesting  fact  is  to  be  noted  as  fixing  the  precise 


42  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

day  of  the  event  and  also  as  shedding  a  strong  hght 
of  probabiHty  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive. We  are  told  by  John  "that  they  entered  not  into 
the  palace  that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  but  might 
eat  the  Passover";  and  this  we  find  to  be  in  exact 
accord  with  the  Levitical  ritual,  by  which  a  pious  Jew 
might  not  enter  a  Gentile  household  during  the  time 
of  Passover,  lest  by  entering  a  house  which  contained 
"leaven"  they  should  suffer  ceremonial  defilement,  and 
could  not,  therefore,  with(jut  a  long  ceremony  of  puri- 
fication, partake  of  the  unleavened  bread  of  the  Pass- 
over. Thus  we  find  these  Priestly  accusers  of  Jesus 
willing  to  do  him  to  death  in  the  grossest  violation  of 
law,  and  yet  halting  at  the  gates  of  the  Pretorium  in 
pretended  regard  for  the  ceremonial  law.  What  a 
striking  example  of  the  presence  of  form  and  absence 
of  spirit  from  that  Pharisaical  element  of  Jewish  so- 
ciety, which  Jesus  had  so  scathingly  arraigned  only 
two  days  before,  when  he  said :  "Woe  unto  you 
Scribes,  Pharisees,  hypocrites,  for  ye  pay  tythe  of  mint 
and  anise  and  cummin,  and  have  left  undone  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law.  judgment  and  mercy 
and  faith." 

The  prosecution  embracing  Jesus  and  his  accusers, 
having  thus  been  halted  within  the  outer  porches  or 
courts  of  the  palace,  we  are  told  by  the  record  that 
Pilate  went  out  unto  them.  In  thus  indicating  that  the 
judgment  seat  of  Pilate  was  in  these  outer  courts  of 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  43 

Herod's  Palace  the  Bible  record  is  again  found  to  be 
in  exact  conformity  with  the  historic  fact,  which  is 
that  the  Tribunal  of  the  Roman  Procurator  was  lo- 
cated in  front  of  the  entrance  and  between  the  great 
marble  wings  of  the  palace  upon  an  elevated  spot 
called  the  "Gabaatha"  in  Aramaic,  and  the  "Lithos- 
traton"  in  Greek.  The  tribunal  was  thus  raised  in 
conformity  with  a  maxim  of  the  Roman  law  that  all 
criminal  trials  should  be  conducted  from  a  raised  tri- 
bunal. The  ivory  chair  of  the  Procurator  was  placed 
upon  this  eminence,  from  which,  under  the  Roman 
law  the  Judge  must  ask,  "What  accusation  bring  ye 
against  this  man?" 

This  question  on  the  part  of  the  Procurator  placed 
the  priestly  accusers  of  Jesus  between  the  horns  of  this 
dilemma :  If  they  said,  "We  have  tried  and  condemned 
this  man  to  death  for  blasphemy,  which  is  the  highest 
offense  under  our  law,"  Pilate  would  at  once  have  re- 
sponded, as  was  his  right  and  duty :  "I  will  review 
your  trials  according  to  your  law  to  determine 
whether  this  person  has  been  legally  tried  and  con- 
demned." Such  a  review  would  at  once  have  dis- 
closed the  illegalities  of  the  Jewish  trial  and  entitled 
Jesus  to  be  released.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Jews 
said,  We  have  not  yet  tried  Jesus  for  blasphemy  or 
any  other  ofifense  against  our  law,  Pilate  would  have 
said,  as  indeed  he  presently  did  say:  "Take  him  your- 
selves and  judge  him  according  to  your  law."     This 


44  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

would  not  suit  their  deadly  purpose,  for  they  had  not 
the  power  over  life  and  death ;  so  the  cunning  Jews 
attempted  to  divert  Pilate  from  an  inquiry  into  the 
merits  of  Jesus'  case  by  saying :  "If  this  man  were  not 
an  evil  doer  (or  a  malefactor)  we  would  not  have  de- 
livered him  up  to  thee."  But  Pilate  was  not  to  be  thus 
diverted,  and  hence  the  Jews  were  forced  to  abandon 
their  former  charge  and  judgment  of  blasphemy,  and 
to  formulate  a  new  accusation,  viz.,  treason  against 
Caesar;  and  so  the  record  tells  us  that  they  began  to 
accuse  him,  saying:  "We  found  this  man  perverting 
our  nation,  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  and 
saying,  'I  am  Christ,  a  King.'  " 

Let  me  at  this  point  ask  you  to  recall  to  your  minds 
that  immortal  picture  of  this  Roman  trial,  which 
Munkacksy  has  given  to  art  in  his  "Christ  Before 
Pilate,"  for  the  purpose  of  giving  vividness  to  the 
scene. 

When  the  eyes  of  Pilate  rested  upon  the  face,  and 
figure,  and  bearing  of  this  lonely  man,  surrounded  by 
his  priestly  enemies,  and  who  answered  not  a  word  to 
the  vehement  accusations  of  the  High  Priest,  he  must 
have  realized  that  lie  had  no  ordinary  offender  before 
him ;  no  Judas  the  Gaulonite ;  no  Barabbas  the  robber ; 
no  fierce  and  half-savage  fanatic  or  zealot  who  had 
been  arrested  in  the  act  of  perverting  the  nation,  re- 
sisting the  tribute  or  inciting  the  Jews  to  revolt ;  and 
he,  therefore,  proceeded  to  do  the  thing  which  under 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  45 

the  Roman  law  it  was  customary  for  the  Procurator 
to  do.  He  retired  into  his  palace,  taking  Jesus  with 
him  for  the  purpose  of  holding  a  preliminary  exam- 
ination, and  when  he  was  alone  with  Jesus  he  put  to 
him  the  searching  question :  "Art  thou  the  King  of 
the  Jews?"  And  then  Jesus  for  the  first  time  did  that 
which  for  the  first  time  during  his  trial  he  was  legally 
bound  to  do :  He  broke  his  silence  to  ask  the  pertinent 
question,  "Sayest  thou  this  of  thyself,  or  did  others 
tell  it  thee  concerning  me?"  The  meaning  of  this 
counter  question  was  this :  Jesus  simply  desired  that 
the  standpoint  of  the  Procurator  be  defined.  Did 
Pilate  ask  the  question  from  a  Roman  or  a  Jewish 
point  of  view,  from  a  temporal  or  a  spiritual  stand- 
point ?  In  other  words,  he  said,  "Do  you  wish  to 
know  whether  I  claim  to  be  an  earthly  king,  and  am 
thus  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  power;  or  do  you 
voice  the  Jewish  idea  that  I  claim  to  be  the  promised 
Messiaii  of  the  Jews?"  H  the  first  was  the  purport  of 
Pilate's  question  it  called  for  one  reply ;  but  if  the 
second,  for  quite  a  different  reply.  Pilate  answers, 
"Am  I  a  Jew?"  By  which  he  meant  to  say:  'T  ask 
the  question  as  the  Roman  Procurator,  looking  only 
for  violations  of  the  Roman  law."  Jesus  then  an- 
swered :  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world."  This 
constituted  a  denial  of  the  accusation  in  the  Roman 
sense,  without  being  a  denial,  l>ut  rather  an  af^rma- 


46  THE   ILLEGALITY    OF 

tioii  of  his  kingship  in  the  spiritual  and  Messianic 
sense. 

But  this  word  kingdom  struck  upon  the  sensitive 
and  suspicious  ear  of  Pilate ;  and  looking  upon  this 
prisoner  bound  before  him,  so  majestic  in  his  simplic- 
ity and  self-composure — so  unlike  all  of  his  precon- 
ceptions of  any  pretender  to  kingship,  he  asked  in  a 
spirit  of  incredulous  wonder,  "Art  thou,  then,  a  king?" 
And  to  this  question  Jesus  made  that  reply  which  has 
come  down  the  ages  as  the  keynote  of  Christianity, 
"Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king;  to  this  end  was  I 
born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I 
should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth ;  everyone  that  is 
of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice."  And  thereupon  Pilate 
put  to  him  that  question  which  is  the  ever-recurring 
question  of  the  ages,  "What  is  truth?" 

How  strange  a  question  for  Pontius  Pilate  to  ask. 
Did  he  ask  it  in  a  spirit  of  irony  of  the  one  being  in 
all  the  world  who  could  have  given  him  the  answer 
he  did  not  await?  So  Bacon  seems  to  have  believed 
when  he  wrote  "'What  is  Truth?'  said  the  jesting 
Pilate,  and  would  not  stay  for  an  answer."  However 
this  may  be,  the  record  tells  us  that  Pilate  immediately 
went  out,  and  mounting  his  judgment  seat  rendered 
his  judgment  of  acquittal  in  the  words,  "I  find  no 
crime  in  him." 

The  proceedings  before  the  Roman  Procurator  had 
up  to  this  time  been  conducted  with  all  of  the  formal- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  47 

ities  of  a  regular  Roman  trial,  and  Pilate  had  thus  far\ 
acted  as  a  just  and  fearless  judge.  But  from  this  time  \ 
forth  until  his  craven  reversal  of  his  righteous  judg- 
ment of  acquittal  and  his  cowardly  and  illegal  entry 
of  the  judgment  of  conviction  of  an  admittedly  inno- 
cent man,  the  proceedings  before  Pilate  were  irregular, 
tumultuous  and  altogether  unworthy  of  a  Roman 
court  of  justice.  The  subterfuge  of  Pilate  in  sending 
Jesus  to  Herod  Antipas  at  the  Palace  of  the  Macca- 
bees, where  he  was  temporarily  residing  during  the 
Passover,  and  the  return  of  Jesus  by  Herod,  "that  cun- 
ning fox,"  clad  in  the  royal  purple,  to  indicate  that  he, 
as  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  had  no  jurisdiction  to  try  one 
charged  with  treasonable  designs  upon  the  kingship 
in  Judea ;  the  conduct  of  Pilate  in  proposing  the  com- 
promise judgment  of  "scourging  the  prisoner  whom 
he  had  acquitted,  and  letting  him  go" ;  the  proposal  of 
Pilate  to  release  Jesus  under  the  law  or  custom  re- 
quiring the  release  of  one  imprisoned  Jew  during  the 
Passover ;  the  momentary  resolution  of  Pilate  to  stand 
by  his  just  decision,  inspired  by  the  message  from  his 
wife,  Claudia,  to  "have  nothing  to  do  with  this  just 
man,"  and  the  final  debasement  of  his  character  as  a 
man  and  his  conscience  as  a  Roman  Judge  in  weakly 
yielding  to  the  Jews  when  they  threatened  to  complain 
to  Tiberius,  in  the  words,  "If  thou  let  this  man  go 
thou  art  not  a  friend  of  Csesar.  Whosoever  maketh 
himself  a  king  speaketh  against  Caesar;"  and  lastly. 


48  THE    ILLEGALITY    OF 

and  after  he  had  rendered  his  unjust  and  unlawful 
judgment,  his  dramatic  act  in  calling  for  a  basin  of 
water  and  washing  his  haiids  before  the  spectators, 
saying,  "I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  man," 
followed  by  the  exultant  cry  of  the  priestly  accusers, 
"His  blood  be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children" — all 
of  these  incidents  of  the  latter  stages  of  the  trial  briefly 
and  simply  narrated  by  the  Gospel  writers,  are  so  ac- 
cordant in  every  detail  with  the  Pilate  of  history,  with 
the  quality  of  Jesus'  accusers,  and  with  the  decadent 
spirit  of  the  place  and  time,  as  to  compel  our  belief  in 
the  verity  of  the  Scripture  recital.  There  are  many 
interesting  sidelights  which  might  be  thrown  upon  the 
scene  at  this  point,  such  as  the  discovery  at  Turin, 
Italy,  in  about  the  eleventh  century,  of  certain  ancient 
manuscripts  purporting  to  be  "Acts  of  Pilate,"  and 
embracing  a  detailed  account  or  record  of  the  trial  of 
Jesus.  The  current  of  modern  criticism  is  against  the 
genuineness  of  these  documents  as  a  contemporary  ac- 
count of  the  trial,  but  the  interesting-  fact  remains  that 
the  three  greatest  early  Christian  writers,  other  than 
the  apostles,  Justiji  Martyr,  Tertullian  and  Eusebius, 
all  refer  to  a  then  existing  record  of  the  trial,  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  called  "Acts  of 
Pilate."  and  officially  transmitted  to  Tiberius  after 
the  occurrence  of  these  events. 

With  the  judgment  of  conviction  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth by  the  Roman  Procurator  ended  the  greatest  legal 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  49 

trial  in  all  history,  whether  viewed  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  person  of  the  accused,  or  the  nature  of 
the  accusation,  or  the  jurisdiction  of  the  two  tribunals 
before  which  the  trial  occurred;  or  from  the  after 
effect  upon  the  history  of  mankind.  It  is  not  within 
the  limitations  of  my  time  and  subject  to  relate  the 
story  of  the  execution  of  that  judgment,  nor  attempt 
to  show  the  striking  accuracy  of  the  Scripture  record 
to  the  known  history  of  the  place  and  time.  Suffice  it 
to  say,  in  conclusion,  that  the  cross  raised  on  Calvary 
on  that  tragic  afternoon  of  Friday,  the  14th  of 
the  month  Nisan,  in  the  year  30  A.  D.,  outside  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem,  has  been  the  blessed  symbol  of 
sacrifice,  of  hope,  of  freedom  and  of  justice  for  hu- 
manity from  that  day  to  the  present  hour,  and  that  it 
will  continue  so  to  be  "until  the  kingdom  of  this  world 
shall  become  the  kingdom  of  Our  Lord  and  of  His 
Christ,  who  shall  reign  forever  and  ever." 


THE    LEGALITY   OF 

THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 


The  Trial    of  Jesus. 


ITS  LEGALITY  FROM  A  JURIST'S  VIEW- 
POINT. 


BY    DR.    S.    SRINIVASA    AIYAR^    B.    A.,    B.    L.,    LATE    HIGH 
COURT   VAKIL   AND  EDITOR    MADRAS   LAW 
JOURNAL,    MYLAPORE,   INDIA. 

(All  Rights  Reserved.) 

"All  history,"  said  the  lamented  Master  Maitland, 
in  a  memorable  epigram,  "is  but  a  seamless  web,  and 
he  who  endeavors  to  tell  but  a  piece  of  it  must  feel 
that  his  first  sentence  tears  the  fabric." 

This  seamless  web  of  the  legal  status  of  the  trial 
of  Jesus  unites  inseparably  the  story  of  that  period  in 
the  world's  history  which  ante-dates  the  dawn  of  the 
Christian  Era  with  the  nineteen  centuries  which  have 
since  passed. 


54  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

The  history  of  law  is  made  up  of  two  movements — 
racial  and  intellectual.  One  is  the  Germanic  migra- 
tions planting  custom  everywhere;  the  other  the  post- 
humous power  of  the  Romans.  One  cannot  be  under- 
stood fully  without  tracing  the  other. 

The  demand  for  a  settlement  of  the  much  mooted 
question  raised  by  the  subject  is  found  in  the  spirit  of 
the  times — the  craving  for  more  knowledge. 

If  the  trial  of  Jesus  was  illegal  in  its  detailed  as- 
pects, it  was  but  one  of  many  others  which  have  been 
held  of  equal  gravity  and  with  like  penalty — death — 
since ;  and  it  may  be  added  the  same  errors  in  law  and 
judgment  are  the  almost  daily  creatures  even  of  this 
day  of  enlightenment  and  progress. 

The  authorities  offered  in  support  of  my  argument 
need  no  introduction.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  history  of  the  law  of  the  time  of  Jesus  and  of 
to-day  is  but  the  embryology  of  a  set  of  ideas  which 
have  crystallized  into  form.  The  first  chapter  treating 
on  this  subject  will  be  more  in  the  nature  of  a  state- 
ment of  certain  facts  than  of  argument. 

Whether  the  spirit  of  the  human  is  of  divine  origin, 
or  whether  it,  like  the  life  of  the  grass  and  tree, 
springs  from  the  great  God  Nature  is  not  considered 
or  discussed  herein.     In  no  sense  is  it  an  issue. 

The  canons  of  scientific  evidence  justify  us  neither 
in  accepting  nor  rejecting  the  ideas  upon  which  the 
various  religions  of  the  world  repose.     All  parties  to 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  55 

the  dispute  beat  the  air  and  worry  over  their  own 
shadows.  BeHef  is  but  a  hope  that  is  won  and  lost. 
Metaphysics  can  no  longer  claim  to  be  the  corner  stone 
of  religion.  Around  the  ideas  promulgated  by  bishop, 
priest  and  clergy,  she  throws  her  bulwark  of  invisi- 
bility. 

The  essence  of  positive  philosophy  is  that  man  passes 
through  three  mental  periods :  the  Theological  or  fic- 
titious; the  Metaphysic  or  abstract;  the  Positive  or 
scientific.  It  is  not  with  any  of  these  three  general 
philosophies  or  systems  of  conception  concerning  life 
or  destiny  that  we  have  to  deal. 

The  real  man  of  faith  is  one  who  discards  all  thought 
of  "how  it  happened,"  but  fixes  his  mind  on  facts  and 
conditions.  The  preacher  of  to-day,  no  matter  whether 
he  be  Brahmin,  Buddhist,  Methodist,  or  Catholic,  is 
simply  society's  walking  delegate.  To  profess  to  know 
that  which  we  cannot  know  and  prove  places  a  penalty 
on  advancement. 

The  presentation  of  argument  which  will  follow  is 
not  written  in  controversial  spirit.  The  writer  has  no 
time  to  waste  in  quarreling  with  people  who  do  not 
dare  to  be  convinced  and  who  ridicule  everything 
which  is  beyond  their  limited  outlook.  It  is  of  little 
consequence  in  the  light  of  past  experiences  whether 
the  trial  of  Jesus  was  strictly  legal  and  in  accord  with 
the  law  of  the  land.  The  general  holding  is  that  it 
was  not.     By  many  the  opinion  is  entertained  that  it 


56  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

was  one  step  in  the  era  of  destiny;  that  it  was  to  be 
as  it  was.  In  discussing  this  question  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  thfeology  has  to  do  with  more  than  the 
so-called  Christian  belief.  There  are  over  one  hundred 
doctrines  all  dealing  with  a  future  life,  and  all  tending 
to  education  in  a  higher  development,  all  pointing  out 
the  good  which  follows  their  belief.  We  make  our 
fortunes  and  we  call  them  fate.  The  sum  total  of 
destiny  is  most  pronounced  in  Buddhism.  In  Sir  Ed- 
ward Arnold's  ''Light  of  Asia"  we  read; 

"Before  beginning,  and  without  an  end 
As  space  eternal  and  as  surety  sure, 
Is  fixed  a  Power  divine  that  moves  to  good, 
Only  its  laws  endure." 

"If  he  shall  labor  rightly,  rooting  these 

And  planting  wholesome  seedlings  where  they  grew ; 
Fruitful  and  fair  and  clean  the  ground  shall  be 
And  rich  the  harvest  due." 

Not  from  birth  does  one  become  a  slave;  not  from 
birth  does  one  become  a  saint ;  but  by  conduct  alone. 
It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  article  to  usurp  the  func- 
tions or  the  privileges  of  the  ecclesiastic.  To  the 
preachers  will  be  left  the  discussion  of  theological 
problems.  With  the  discussion  which  follows,  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  and  the  divinity  of  Jesus  are  not 
an  issue.  No  digression  from  a  strict  adherence  to  a 
secular  discussion  of  the  legal  rights  of  TJie  Man  Jesus 
at  the  bar  of  Human  justice  has  been  intended. 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  57 

I  am  well  aware  that  when  an  unfamiliar  or  an  un- 
popular doctrine  is  presented  to  the  world,  one  hears 
in  reply  the  cry,  "What  are  your  proofs?"  It  may  not 
be  easy  to  guess  what  is  meant  by  such  a  question ; 
one  certainly  can  infer  that  it  indicates  a  certain  con- 
fusion of  mind  on  the  part  of  the  questioner.  It  is 
probably  the  result  of  a  habit,  which  our  minds  have 
acquired  in  consequence  of  too  much  worship  of  the 
mductive  method  used.  In  other  words,  niodern 
science  demands  something  more  than  hope,  some- 
thing more  than  faith,  something  w^e  can  call  evidence 
of  the  fact.  This  is  required  of  both  sides  to  the  argu- 
ment as  to  the  legality  or  illegality  of  the  trial  of  Jesus. 
It  is  easy  to  reason  out  to  one's  own  satisfaction  that 
the  trial  was  illegal  in  all  its  aspects  because  we  have 
been  taught  to  believe  it  to  be  so,  but  it  is  not  so  easy 
for  us  to  maintain  that  it  was  legal  in  form  and  feature 
unless  we  have  back  of  us  the  indisputable  proof  of 
the  fact  upon  which  we  rely,  because  it  is  antagonistic 
to  the  general  belief  of  the  so-called  Christian  world. 
We  are  required  to  prove  our  position  much  in  the 
same  fashion  as  we  would  a  problem  in  geometry. 

Let  me  say  in  the  beginning  as  a  word  of  explan- 
ation of  what  is  to  follow,  that  dating  back  to  the 
earliest  periods  in  the  history  of  mankind,  when  there 
was  but  one  Gnosis  or  Knowledge  embracing  all — 
long  before  the  Religions,  Sciences  and  the  Philos- 
ophies were  else  than  a  system  of  wisdom — good,  the 


58  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

terms  Heaven  and  Hell  were  understood  in  a  far  dif- 
ferent light  than  they  are  to-day.  The  word  Heaven 
means,  and  has  always  meant,  Harmony;  while  Hell 
long  before  it  took  on  the  old  English  meaning  meant 
Bad.  The  early  definition  given  it  in  English  litera- 
ture was  "to  separate,  to  build  a  wall  around."  The 
first  a  condition  where  one  was  in  right  relation  with 
all  else,  the  latter  a  situation  where  one  was  in  wrong 
relation  with  all  surroundings,  where  one  was  re- 
strained, held  and  shut  off  from  the  best  in  life.  The 
very  idea  of  restraint  implies  all  that  Hell  ever  was, 
or  is  to-day  supposed  to  be. 

Whether  the  apocryphal  Acts  of  Pilate  are  authen- 
tic, is  a  point  the  scholarship  of  the  world  will  never 
settle;  it  is  as  fair  to  assume  that  they  are  genuine  as 
that  the  compilers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
handed  down  to  us  true  translations  and  genuine  docu- 
ments upon  which  the  Christian  of  the  Twentieith 
Century  relies. 

The  acts  of  Pilate  were  undoubtedly  discovered  at 
Turin,  in  Northern  Italy,  about  A.  D.  lOO.  Reference 
will  be  had  to  them  later  on  and  they  will  be  published 
as  a  part  of  this  article  as  first  used  by  the  noted  New 
Testament  palaeographer.  Dr.  Constantine  Tischen- 
dorf,  and  the  celebrated  Orientalist,  Victor  Amedee 
Peyron,  professor  of  Oriental  languages  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Turin,  as  being  an  accurate  copy  of  the  doc- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  59 

mnent  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr  in  the  year   138 
A.  D.  and  by  Tertullian  about  the  year  200  A.D. 

It  is  not  intended  to  question  the  genuineness  of  the 
l)ooks  nor  the  works  of  the  compilers  of  the  Bible,  but 
wherever  these  seem  to  come  in  conflict  with  the  au- 
thorities cited  in  support  of  the  position  here  taken,  it 
is  due  the  writer  to  say,  the  names  of  the  compilers 
are  not  known  and  much  of  the  data  is  in  dispute;  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  they  exist  to-day  were 
mentioned  by  Rabbi  Judah  in  the  second  century,  just 
as  the  acts  of  Pilate  were  referred  to  by  an  equal  au- 
thority. The  canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  es- 
tablished late  in  the  fourth  century.  Religious  leaders 
and  church  councils  made  up  the  canon  of  Scripture 
from  what  material  they  had  at  hand.  Many  books 
that  were  at  one  time  included  in  the  original  Scrip- 
tures were  afterward  dropped  out  as  unworthy.  In 
those  left  out,  there  was  too  much  in  conflict  with  that 
which  was  left  in.  The  books  of  Apocrypha  have  gen- 
erally been  omitted  from  the  Old  Testament,  while 
the  Acts  of  Paul,  the  Revelation  of  Peter  are  no  longer 
found  in  the  New.  It  is  of  record  that  over  two  thou- 
sand changes  were  made  in  the  copying  of  the  manu- 
scripts. True,  many  of  these  were  of  minor  import- 
ance. Since  the  manuscripts  were  copied  in  the  first 
instance  over  twenty-eight  hundred  material  changes 
have  been  made  as  relating  to  the  definition  and  con- 
struction of  words,  many  of  which  are  of  prime  im- 


6o  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

portance.  Over  eight  hundred  minor  changes  have 
been  found  in  older  manuscripts  than  were  known  at 
the  time  of  the  King  James  version. 

Numerous  authorities  have  been  consulted  touching 
the  subject  matter  which  have  heretofore  never  been 
considered.  In  this  century  of  study  and  research,  we 
must  draw  upon  them  from  all  places  in  order  that 
fact  may  be  presented  rather  than  fiction. 

Among  other  authorities  to  which  reference  will  be 
made  herein  are  original  documents  from  Taxila,  now 
at  Simla,  India,  dating  back  to  A.  D.  326 ;  these  docu- 
ments are  also  supported  by  copious  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  Rabindranath  Tagore,  one  of  the  great 
teachers  of  the  Rishis. 

Let  me  as  a  preface  to  what  will  follow  say :  It  is 
not  contended,  rather  it  is  admitted,  that  the  life  of 
Jesus  was  one  of  service,  that  his  work  of  scattering 
seeds  of  thought  and  love  by  each  wayside  became 
glorious  fruitage  of  a  grander  day.  I  believe  that  he 
was  filled  with  the  loftiest  sentiments  that  have  ever 
blossomed  in  speech  and  that  he  cherished  all  that  he 
believed  to  be  pure,  defended  what  he  believed  to  be 
right,  and  attacked  without  mercy  all  that  he  knew  to 
be  wrong.  His  masterly  appeals  proclaim  Him  the 
teacher  of  his  time.  His  was  a  great  unselfish  soul, 
spanned  with  radiant  bows  of  faith,  and  yet  the  reli- 
gion which  he  taught  was  not  unlike  other  religions 
which  had  come  long  before. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  6i 

No  thinking  person  now  accepts  as  anything  but 
primitive  myth  or  fanciful  poetry  the  story  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  or  the  portrait  of  God  in  the  second 
chapter  of  Genesis  as  a  being  who  formed  man  out  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground  as  a  child  fashions  an  image 
out  of  snow  or  clay.  The  Creator  is  for  modern  men 
a  sleepless,  active  energy  and  will,  which  yesterday, 
to-day  and  forever  actuates  all  things,  as  the  human 
spirit  actuates  its  own  body,  so  small  and  yet  so  in- 
conceivably complex. 

By  savage  man  the  gods  were  recognized  chiefly  in 
the  irresistible  catastrophes  of  nature,  in  the  lightning, 
the  earthquake,  the  flood  and  the  drought,  the  volcano 
and  the  mighty  wind.  Twentieth  century  people  rec- 
ognize God  chiefly  in  the  wonderful  energies  of  sound, 
light  and  electricity,  in  the  vital  processes  of  plants 
and  animals,  in  human  loves  and  aspirations,  and  in 
the  evolution  of  human  society.  Through  the  applica- 
tion of  the  inductive  method  the  human  race  has  with- 
in a  hundred  years  gained  the  power  of  applying  pro- 
digious natural  forces  to  beneficent  human  uses.  In 
so  doing  it  has  obtained  great  spiritual  advantages  in 
new  conceptions  of  God  and  nature. 

None  of  the  advances  of  science  and  government 
have  any  adverse  efifect  on  the  conception  of  Jesus  as 
teacher  and  exemplar.  The  sciences  have  their  own 
prophets,  martyrs  and  heroes,  for  whom  all  worthy 
scientific  men  feel  profound  reverence.    Literature  and 


62  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

art  have  their  great  masters,  whose  works  survive  for 
centuries,  and  long  continue  profoundly  to  influence 
select  human  spirits. 

Jesus,  the  amazing  product  of  the  Hebrew  race  and 
of  the  Hebraic  history  and  tradition,  is  the  supreme 
teacher  of  religion,  whose  teachings,  imperfectly  trans- 
mitted by  the  groups  of  simple  people  to  whom  He 
spoke  in  the  language  and  the  atmosphere  of  an  ob- 
scure province,  and  soon  corrupted  in  the  great  Greek 
and  Roman  world,  have,  nevertheless,  proved  to  be  the 
undying  root  of  all  the  best  in  human  history  since  He 
lived.  For  this  personality  the  love  and  reverence  of 
mankind  are  ahvays  ascending  and  always  glowing 
with  greater  warmth  and  brilliancy,  as  the  clouds 
which  gathered  out  of  paganism  around  his  doctrines 
are  gradually  dispelled. 

The  church  of  the  future  wdll  reverence  more  and 
more  the  personality  of  Jesus,  and  will  dwell  on  the 
extraordinary  qualities  of  his  teaching,  as  proved  by 
their  historical  effects  during  nineteen  centuries.  He 
laid  down  ethical  principles  of  the  purest  worth,  which 
are  good  for  all  time,  but  which  were  so  crushed  and 
overborne  by  the  existing  currents  of  thought  and  the 
social  institutions  of  his  day  that  they  have  been  strug- 
gling for  recognition  ever  since  they  were  uttered,  and 
still  lack  their  intended  fruition. 

As  a  rule,  men  of  science  have  nc^  faith  in  magic  or 
miracle.     They  have  a  passion  for  truth  and  fact,  but 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  63 

no  liking-  for  mere  speculation  or  for  theories  based 
solely  on  men's  institutions.  Nevertheless  they  are 
liberal  and  comprehensive  in  their  ideas  of  truth  and 
fact;  and  so  they  put  religion  itself,  the  history  of 
mankind  and  the  history  of  language  into  the  region 
of  truth  and  fact  where  men  of  the  most  scientific 
spirit  and  perfect  candor  may  lalx>r  with  profit.  In 
this  sense  the  religions  of  the  world  are  a  legitimate 
field  for  scientific  investigation.  Of  course,  that  re- 
ligion will  be  most  sympathetically  explored  which 
seems  to  the  explorer  to  have  been  of  most  service  to 
human  society. 

Men  of  science  also  include,  among  proper  fields  for 
scientific  investigation  the  whole  field  of  man's  mental 
operations,  emotions  and  passions  in  regard  to  their 
sources,  inter-relations  and  reciprocal  effects.  Cau- 
tious experimenters,  therefore,  study  with  increasing 
amplitude  and  success  the  reactions  of  mind  and  body, 
of  mind  on  mind  and  of  one  will  on  another  will.  In 
other  words,  science  affirms  rationality  and  believes 
that  man's  whole  nature  is  attuned  to  the  nature  of  the 
universe  and  its  God. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  question 
of  whether  Jesus  was  tried  in  a  court  of  law,  whether 
the  sentence  of  death  pronounced  against  him  was  at 
the  hands  of  a  judicial  tribunal,  for  an  infraction  of 
the  law's  decrees  as  then  and  there  in  force.  Was  the 
trial  which  resulted  in  his  conviction  a  fair  trial,  ac- 


64  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

cording  to  due  process  of  law?  Were  the  things 
which  were  charged  against  him  as  an  offense  against 
the  prevaihng  law  of  the  land?  Was  the  evidence 
offered  in  support  of  these  charges  competent,  and  did 
that  evidence  support  the  finding  of  "guilty"  ?  Did 
Jesus  receive  every  right  to  which  he  was  entitled  un- 
der the  law  of  the  land  under  which  he  was  tried, 
which  was  guaranteed  to  those  accused  of  crime? 

Bear  in  mind  that  in  considering  the  above  proposi- 
tions we  must  leave  out  of  consideration  for  the  time 
being  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  treat  him  as  a  human- 
man  alone.  Having  this  in  mind,  I  can  come  to  no 
other  conclusion  than  that  the  sentence  was  a  legal 
sentence,  which  affirmatively  answers  each  of  the  prop- 
ositions above. 

The  general  idea  which  prevails  and  which  is  enter- 
tained throughout  all  Christendom  is  that  Jesus  was 
not  tried  or  condemned  in  a  court  of  law.  The  com- 
mon understanding  of  this  event  fails  to  embrace  any 
impression  of  judicial  order  or  of  system.  The  public 
generally  entertain  the  notion  that  Jesus  was  the  vic- 
tim of  a  frenzied  mob,  and  that  his  execution  was 
what  we  would  Call  in  the  present  day  the  operation  of 
lynch  law.  Especially  is  this  so  as  applied  to  the 
United  States.  Notwithstanding  this  prevailing  im- 
pression, it  is  my  contention  that  the  authorities 
throughout  establish  the  fact  that  his  destruction  was 
wrought  under  the  operation  of  an  exact  system  of 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  65 

government,  law  and  judicial  procedure;  that  this  trial, 
which  is  pronounced  legal,  was  in  a  Roman  forum. 

There  were  two  trials  of  Jesus.  The  first  was  not 
maintained.  It  was  more  in  the  nature  of  a  farcical 
examination,  in  which  the  sentiment  of  the  people, 
those  of  the  Sons  of  Israel  who  prosecuted  him  were 
unable  to  maintain  their  contentions,  and  the  finding 
of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  when  the  case  finally  came  for 
a  review  and  affirmation  before  Pilate.  The  judicial 
powers  of  this  last  Court  of  Appeal  as  reflected  in 
Pilate,  were  absolute,  he  officiating  as  procurator  of 
the  Emperor.  He  could  not  sit  and  act  as  a  trial  judge 
but  only  in  his  executive  capacity  as  Roman  Governor. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  at  this  time  Judea  had 
been  conquered  by  Imperial  Rome,  and  was  then  a 
province  of  that  Empire. 

In  the  first  forum  in  which  Jesus  was  arraigned  the 
hearing  was  in  every  sense  ecclesiastical.  The  great 
body  of  seventy-one  members,  comprising  the  high 
priests,  the  elders  and  the  scribes  of  the  Sanhedrin  alone 
were  to  pass  upon  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  man 
charged  before  them.  This  was  the  Jewish  trial.  It 
is  my  contention  that  the  full  quota  of  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  were  present  and  officiated  at  the  trial  of 
Christ;  yet  I  believe  that  there  was  much  that  was 
farcical  in  this  hearing.  The  inflamed  minds  of  the 
populace,  the  passion  of  his  accusers,  must  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  have  operated  to  have  influenced  the 


66  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

minds  of  those  who  eventually  were  to  pass  upon  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner.  Yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  while  the  finding  of  the  Sanhedrin  members  was 
adverse  to  the  accused,  this  finding  was  set  aside  when 
it  was  referred  to  Pilate  who  dismissed  the  appeal  with 
the  words  "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man." 

These  were  words  which  are  properly  applicable  to 
the  judicial  decision  in  the  review  of  the  trial  before 
the  Jewish  court.  The  case  was  not  dismissed  for  ir- 
regularity; so  far  as  we  know  it  was  not  urged  or 
claimed  that  there  Avere  any  illegal  features  touching 
the  entire  hearing,  or  in  affecting  the  jurisdiction  ot 
the  court.  But  the  case  was  absolutely  dismissed  be- 
cause the  verdict  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  facts 
presented  in  support  of  the  charge. 

Much  has  been  said  derogatory  to  the  Jews  as  a 
people  because  of  the  fact  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  in  their 
great  court,  and  because  they  appeared  as  his  prose- 
cutors and  accusers.  This  I  find  to  be  unfair,  for  the 
reason  that  they  and  they  alone  were  at  that  time  af- 
fected, if  at  all,  by  Jesus'  acts.  They  regarded  him 
much  as  we  of  to-day  do  the  labor  agitator,  or  the  man 
who  breeds  sedition  and  favors  anarchistic  rule.  If 
the  people  of  the  race  of  Israel  were  carried  away  by 
their  belief  that  Jesus  was  a  disorderly  character  and 
trouble  maker,  one  who  was  breeding  dissension  and 
creating  a  disbelief  in  existing  conditions  and  laws, 
they  did  not  go  the  length  that  many  communities 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  67 

have  in  that  regard  since  the  Christian  Era.  Selecting 
Russia  and  England  as  shining  examples  of  states  that 
have  ostracized  and  penalized  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands for  like  offenses  in  place  of  one ;  those  who  have 
sought  the  amelioration  of  the  classes,  while  citizens 
of  the  United  States  have  seen  and  been  a  party  to 
riot,  rapine  and  bloodshed  caused  only  by  religious 
intolerance. 

It  was  not  so  many  centuries  ago  both  in  England 
and  America — lands  which  lay  claim  to  the  greatest 
enlightenment  and  cultivation,  that  men,  women  and 
children  were  burned,  hanged,  drawn  and  quartered, 
and  sent  to  that  great  undiscovered  country  of  the 
future  on  no  other  charge  than  that  of  witchcraft  and 
being  witches,  thus  exciting  a  spirit  of  evil  among  the 
people.  It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  God  of 
the  Christian  has  seen  fit  to  select  out  of  all  others  the 
Jewish  people  for  punishment  for  their  alleged  one  act 
of  intolerance.  It  is  charged  that  the  people  of  Israel 
were  directly  and  alone  responsible  for  the  crucifixion 
of  Christ,  and  that  since  that  memorable  epoch  they 
have  been  degraded,  punished  by  separation,  by  various 
forms  of  persecution  and  oppression,  such  as  has  never 
before  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  sect  or  nation. 

It  is  due  the  people  of  Judea,  the  children  of  Israel, 
to  say  :  They  are  the  eldest  people  upon  earth,  compared 
with  which  other  races  are  as  yesterday.  They  are  an 
imperishable  sect  who  with  immutable  traditions  and 


68  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

faith  ill  God  and  in  his  laws,  have  scattered  all  over 
the  world,  maintaining  their  religion  and  their  lan- 
guage. They  have  passed  through  the  fires  of  passion 
and  abuse  unscathed ;  have  been  trampled  into  the  dust 
only  to  rise  again;  have  endured  unknown  and  un- 
imaginable sufferings ;  have  been  oppressed  with  every 
weighty  affliction  and  exposed  to  the  worst  fanatical 
ignorance.  Yet  as  a  tribute  to  them  it  can  be  said 
wherever  found  they  stand  pre-eminent  among  all 
other  people  in  education,  in  sympathy,  in  faith,  love 
and  charity ;  they  stand  for  honesty  and  equal  and 
exact  justice  in  all  things.  From  time  immemorial 
they  have  been  noted  for  their  analytical  minds,  philo- 
sophic character  and  judicial  temperament. 

To  reach  a  proper  understanding  of  these  people 
who'  are  penalized  at  times  with  the  world's  disdain,  a 
call  of  the  roll  of  Hebrew  great  names  would  bring  a 
mighty  procession  to  the  front.  Among  patriarchs, 
Abraham;  among  law  givers  who  equals  Moses; 
among  prophets,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah;  among  mathe- 
maticians and  astronomers,  the  world  looks  first  to 
Herschel,  Sylvdster,  Jacobi  and  Kronecker;  in  the 
rank  of  philosophers  may  be  placed  Spinoza  and  Men- 
delsohn ;  among  historians  who  is  to  compare  with 
Josephus,  Greiger,  Neander  and  Graetz?  No  sweeter 
music  has  ever  been  heard  than  from  Mendelssohn, 
Offenbach,  Goldmark,  Rubinstein  and  Strauss.  Where 
is  the  actor  or  actress  to  compare  with  Sonnenthal, 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  69 

Rachel  or  Bernhardt?  Among  statesmen  Disraeli, 
Gambetta,  Lasker  and  Benjamin  take  first  place.  The 
songs  of  Heine  give  him  high  rank  among  poets. 
Rothschilds,  Bleichrorders  and  Seligmans  are  finan- 
ciers of  note.  Baron  Hirsh  and  Sir  Moses  Montefiore 
are  philanthropists  of  whom  the  entire  Christian  world 
is  proud.  These  are  the  men  and  women  charged 
with  being  indirectly  responsible  through  birth  for  the 
sufferings  of  Christ — the  man  who  was  of  their  own 
people,  the  most  perfect  product  of  Jewish  spiritual 
creation,  the  greatest  teacher  and  the  most  precious 
gem  of  human  life.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
Jews  as  a  people  intellectually,  spiritually  and  judi- 
cially, are  the  most  brilliant  of  any  the  earth  has  yet 
afforded. 

The  general  order  of  events  leading  up  to  and  in- 
cluding the  two  trials  of  Jesus  may  be  thus  described. 

A  little  after  eleven  o'clock  on  the  night  of  April  6, 
A.  D.  30,  Jesus  and  eleven  of  the  Apostles  left  the 
scene  of  the  Last  Supper,  which  was  held  in  the  home 
of  Mark  on  the  outskirts  of  Jerusalem,  and  proceeded 
to  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane. 

At  about  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  April  7 
Jesus,  while  alone,  was  arrested  in  Gethsemane  by  a 
band  of  temple  officers  who  were  followed  by  Roman 
soldiers,  all  being  guided  to  the  spot  by  Judas. 

Jesus  w'as  taken  first  to  Annas,  and  after  a  short 
conference  or  examination  was  sent  to  Caiaphas.   Here 


70  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

a  private  preliminary  examination  was  had,  by  order 
of  Caiaphas,  before  Annas.  This  examination  is  im- 
perfectly described  by  St.  John,  but  is  elucidated  in 
detail  in  the  old  Indian  documents  discovered  at 
Taxila. 

After  this  preliminary  examination,  which  lasted 
something  over  an  hour  as  we  reckon  time,  Annas 
having  found  there  was  probable  cause  to  hold  the 
accused,  or  in  other  words  that  he  was  probably  guilty, 
presented  Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrin,  and  he  was  ar- 
raigned for  trial  upon  charges  of  blasphemy.  Under 
the  law,  this  was  an  offense  punishable  by  death.  The 
hearing  began  and  was  shortly  completed  with  a  unan- 
imous verdict  of  all  members  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

A  temporary  adjourmnent  of  the  trial  session  was 
had,  and  about  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  April 
7  the  Sanhedrin  reassembled  to  retry  Jesus,  to  get  the 
record  in  shape,  in  order  that  it,  the  finding  of  that 
court,  together  with  Jesus,  might  be  brought  before 
Pilate. 

Pontius  Pilate,  procurator  or  governor  of  Judea, 
was  then  stopping  in  the  palace  of  Herod  on  the  Hill 
of  Zion,  he  having  come  up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the 
national  festivals.  The  record  of  the  trial  by  the  San- 
hedrin was  laid  before  Pilate.  The  result  was  a  re- 
versal of  the  finding  of  that  great  court,  and  the  pris- 
oner was  discharged  by  the  Roman  procurator,  who 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  71 

expressed  his  finding  in  these  words,  "I  find  no  fault 
in  him  at  all." 

Immediately  following  the  reversal  of  the  eccle- 
siastical trial  Jesus  was  charged  before  Pilate  with 
high  treason  against  Caesar;  the  evidence  of  two  wit- 
nesses was  taken,  when  Pilate,  being  intimidated  by 
the  rabble,  sent  Jesus  before  Herod,  Tetrarch  of  Gal- 
ilee, who  had  full  jurisdiction  as  a  magistrate  to  hear 
the  accused.  Plerod  himself  was  in  attendance  upon 
the  Passover  feast,  and  was  at  that  moment  residing 
in  the  palace  of  the  Asmoneans,  about  one-half  mile 
from  the  residence  of  Pilate.  A  brief  but  formal  hear- 
ing having  been  had  before  Herod,  he  was  sent  back 
to  the  Roman  governor,  by  whom  he  was  sentenced 
to  death. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  question 
which  seems  to  have  been  lost  sight  of  by  the  many 
writers  who  oppose  the  contention  of  the  legality  of 
the  trial  of  Jesus.  To  the  trained  lawyer  it  may  seem 
unnecessary  to  call  attention  to  the  rule  governing 
presumptions,  as  applied  to  the  question  of  jurisdic- 
tion, regularity  and  validity  touching  the  legality  of 
the  proceedings  in  the  Sanhedrin.  The  law  is  so  well 
settled  in  England,  Germany,  India  and  China  as  to 
need  no  citations  here  in  support  of  the  proposition. 
It  can  fairly  be  said  to  be  equally  well  settled  in  the 
United  States.  In  brief,  the  authorities  agree  that  in 
the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary  appearing,  the 


y2  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

presumption,  is  that  every  act  of  a  court  having  juris- 
diction is  correct. 

Manu,  the  ancient  sage  whose  identity  is  lost  in  the 
mist  of  ages,  but  whose  word  is  regarded  through- 
out India  as  ahnost  divine,  says : 

"In  every  proceeding  in  court  where  a  judgment  is 
pronounced,  if  the  record  itself  does  not  disclose  a 
wrongful  act,  then  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  all  of  the 
proceedings  of  that  court  were  regular,  and  no  other 
presumption  can  exist.  After  a  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time,  we  know  of  no  way  by  which  the  validity  of 
court  proceedings  can  be  attacked  by  outside  matter. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  attack  must  be  made  within  the 
memory  of  a  life;  otherwise  the  evidence  ofifered  in 
support  of  the  attack  would  become  second-hand;  evi- 
dence of  no  value  whatsoever  as  being  but  hearsay." 

An  examination  of  the  American  authorities  dis- 
closes the  following,  and  these  we  assume  to  be  posi- 
tions well  taken  and  decisions  according  to  the  law  of 
the  land: 

Mr.  Chamberlayne,  in  his  excellent  work  on  evi- 
dence, holds  that  .every  presumption  exists  favoring 
the  validity  of  court  judgments.  The  exercise  of 
jurisdiction  by  a  court  implies  jurisdiction,  and  the 
legality  of  all  proceedings  in  connection  therewith  are 
fairly  presumed.  Again  the  same  noted  law  writer 
remarks : 

"Generically  considered,  a  presumption  is  that  men- 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  73 

tal  process  by  which  the  existence  of  one  fact  is  in- 
ferred from  proof  of  some  other  fact  with  which  ex- 
perience shows  it  is  usually  associated  by  co-existence." 

Examining  the  decisions  of  the  state  courts  of  last 
resort  in  America,  we  find  it  is  held  that  "The  pre- 
sumption exists  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, that  a  court  of  record  or  of  general  jurisdiction, 
has  the  authority  which  it  assumes,  and  that  all  pro- 
ceedings and  modes  thereunder  were  authorized."  See 
16  Kansas  31,  15  Kansas  631,  5  Allen  (Mass.)  591, 
50  Nebraska  753. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States,  Article  IV., 
and  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  Laing  v. 
Rigney,  160  U.  S.  531,  assert  that  "Full  faith  and 
credit  should  be  given  to  the  judicial  proceedings  of 
all  courts  of  foreign  jurisdiction." 

Once  more  we  find  it  settled  'Tf  the  court  is  one  of 
general  jurisdiction  and  the  record  is  not  contradictory 
thereof,  the  presumption  is  that  every  act  is  rightly 
done  unless  the  contrary  is  shown."  See  Anderson  v. 
Gray  134  111.  550,  Godfrey  v.  Godfrey  17  Ind.  6,  54 
New  Jersey  Law  260,  13  New  York  Supp'l  589,  4 
Hayw.  (Tenn.)  60,  26  Gratt.  (Va.)  891,  2  Wall 
(U.  S.)  328,  10  Peters  (U.  S.)  449. 

Considering  the  foregoing,  we  feel  secure  in  the 
position  that  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, the  fair  presumption  is  maintained  that  the  San- 
hedrin  had   jurisdiction   of  the  crime  of  blasphemy 


74  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

charged  against  Jesus.  That  all  members  of  that 
tribunal  were  present  and  acted  according  to  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law  touching  the  trial.  That  the 
rules  were  observed  as  to  witnesses,  the  competency 
of  their  testimony,  and  the  correctness  of  the  record 
as  certified  up  to  Pilate,  the  Procurator. 

The  writer  may  be  pardoned  for  seeming  to  divert 
for  the  moment  from  the  main  issue.  The  ultimate 
test  of  the  legality  or  the  illegality  of  the  trial  of  Jesus 
is  the  question  before  us.  To  the  mind  of  the  writer 
diose  who  assume  the  illegality  of  the  trial  ignore  the 
facts  and  rely  on  the  mysteriously  supernatural,  when- 
ever the  facts  show  a  legal  trial  was  had.  Our  oppo- 
nents point  to  too  many  broad  generalisations,  based 
wholly  on  faith  in  religious  emotion.  Things  are 
taken  for  granted  because  they  coincide  with  the  theo- 
ries in  support  of  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
bluntly  refuse  to  investigate  with  open  mind,  confining 
themselves  to  mere  primitive  credulity.  They  accept 
as  truth  what  seems  to  them  in  their  religious  life  to 
be  truly  divine;  their  ideas  may  be  based,  and  gen- 
erally are,  on  an  emotional  experience  or  intuition — 
an  unreasoned  idea  springing  from  the  background  and 
bearing  with  it  an  irresistible  force  of  condition. 

I  pause  to  inquire  whether  any  writer  who  has  dis- 
cussed this  question  and  maintained  the  illegality  of 
Jesus'  trial  has  been  prompted  by  a  scientific  interest, 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  75 

or,  has  not  rather  their  investigations  been  inspired 
by  religious  fervor. 

It  is  in  the  interest  of  both  science  and  religion  that 
the  facts  in  the  case  should  not  remain  submerged  in 
the  sea  of  feeling,  but  should  be  developed  so  as  to 
lead  toward  greater  wisdom  in  religious  education, 
thereby  increasing  our  power  of  appreciation  of  spir- 
itual things.  This  will  make  possible  a  harvest  of 
wiser  means  in  moral  and  religious  culture.  Demon- 
stration should  be  lifted  out  of  the  domain  of  feeling 
so  as  to  make  it  appeal  to  the  understanding,  that  it 
may  become  possible  progressively  to  appreciate  its 
truth  and  apperceive  its  essential  elements. 

The  roots  of  evidential  proof  go  deeper  into  the  or- 
ganic and  biological  parts  of  us  than  do  those  things 
whose  flowers  blossoms  in  the  daylight  of  conscious- 
ness. There  should  be  a  sharp  division  of  the  emo- 
tional background  from  intellect,  a  division  which  re- 
calls the  old  Aristotelian  dual  classification  of  mind 
into  thought  and  desire. 

The  religionist  who  conducts  an  investigation  of 
early  customs  and  taboos  ceremonials  and  magic, 
spirits  and  mythology,  will  emphasize  almost  exclu- 
sively the  social  aspect  of  their  original  development; 
he  finds  they  are  established  to  his  own  satisfaction  in 
the  origin  of  social  consciousness  itself,  of  which  his 
religion  is  an  intimate  phase.  In  other  words,  with 
the  blooming  forth  of  social  consciousness  there  comes 


76  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

ipse  facto  religion.  If  this  is  so,  then  the  irreHgious 
persons  lacks  social  consciousness — this  is  a  veritable 
reductio  ad  absurdum,  lack  of  impulse  or  emotional 
feeling  is  no  evidence  of  mentality. 

This  reference  has  been  made  simply  to  show  the 
processes  by  which  writers  come  to  certain  conclu- 
sions, which  are  not  borne  out  by  the  facts.  There  is 
an  underlying  sameness  in  all  religious  beliefs  in  spite 
of  their  phenomenal  diversity.  We  must  approach  the 
subject  under  discussion  with  free  mind  in  order  to 
find  a  working  hypothesis  sufficiently  broad  and  funda- 
mental that  reason  will  prevail,  according  to  the  ex- 
perience of  man,  and  the  known  and  established  laws 
of  nature  and  jurisprudence. 

In  discussing  the  various  phases  of  the  subject,  we 
must  proceed  in  regular  order — much  as  the  lawyer 
prepares  his  brief  on  the  law  governing  a  statement  of 
facts,  and  yet  the  facts  stated  must  be  so  interwoven 
with  the  laws'  analysis  as  to  make  the  story  complete 
in  form. 

At  the  time  of  Jesus  the  Jewish  nation  was  subject 
to  Roman  dominion,  yet  they  had  their  religion,  laws, 
manners  and  usages,  even  their  system  of  judicial  ad- 
ministration, except  in  respect  to  Roman  jurisdiction 
over  the  province  of  Judah — when  incompatible  with 
Roman  supremacy.  A  Jew  was  subject  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Sanhedrin  for  a  violation  of  Jewish  law. 
This  was  the  reason  why  Jesus  was  tried  in  a  local 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  77 

forum,  while  later  on  Paul  who  was  arraigned  for 
trial  in  the  same  court,  was  rescued  by  Roman  sol- 
diers because  he  was  a  Roman  citizen,  charged  with 
an  ofifense  strictly  against  the  laws  of  his  country, 
therefore  entitled  to  a  trial  before  a  Roman  tribunal. 
(Acts  xxiii,  10-27,  xxiv,  6-7.)  An  apt  illustration  of 
this  condition  is  found  to-day  in  considering  British 
rule  in  India.  The  nation  being  made  merely  tribu- 
tary at  first,  later  on  losing  its  autonomy  by  slow  de- 
grees— a  case  of  assimilation  and  absorption. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Pilate  was  primar- 
ily an  executive,  not  a  judicial  officer.  In  his  capacity 
then  as  Roman  governor  the  case  of  Jesus  was  brought 
to  him  for  review  from  the  Sanhedrin,  much  in  the 
same  way  as  a  case  goes  up  on  appeal  from  an  inferior 
to  a  superior  court. 

The  verdict  of  guilty  having  been  rendered  in  the 
Sanhedrin,  it  reached  Pilate  in  regular  form  and  by 
regular  degrees.  Under  all  the  authorities,  biblical  or 
profane,  the  case  was  dismissed  by  the  Roman  gover- 
nor, and  his  words  of  dismissal  have  been  wrongfully 
applied  by  many  writers  to  the  second  charge  which 
was  lodged  against  Jesus. 

"I  find  no  fault  in  this  man  at  all"  was  the  finding, 
and  order  of  reversal  of  the  case  from  the  Jewish 
Senate.  Pilate  held  that  in  his  judgment  the  verdict 
of  the  trial  court  was  not  in  accord  with  the  facts,  and 


78  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

therefore  that  Jesus  was  entitled  to  his  discharge,  and 
he  accordingly  dismissed  him. 

When  the  charge  of  treason  was  made  ag^ainst  Jesus, 
Pilate  could  only  do  what  he  did  do.  Even  if  he  had 
jurisdiction  as  an  examining  magistrate,  which  we  do 
not  believe,  it  was  but  justice  that  Jesus  should  be 
sent  to  some  other  forum ;  there  was  too  much  feeling 
against  him,  and  this  was  clearly  appreciated  by  Pilate. 
So  in  his  capacity  as  executive  he  ordered  the  accused 
with  all  witnesses  in  the  case  to  an  examining  magis- 
trate, which  happened  to  be  Herod. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  this  day  of  the 
trial  of  Jesus,  Roman  jurisprudence  was  then,  as  now, 
the  most  scientific  that  has  existed.  In  the  Twentieth 
Century  it  forms  the  substantiative  of  every  legal  sys- 
tem in  Christendom ;  it  stands  before  the  world  as  a 
model. 

It  has  been  urged  as  one  of  the  reasons  why  the 
trial  of  Jesus  was  illegal  that  his  arrest  was  accom- 
plished during  the  night  time.  This  we  are  not  ready 
to  admit  by  any  means,  although  it  is  true  that  the 
Jewish  law  prohibited  all  proceedings  by  night.  (See 
Dupin,  "J^sus  Devant  Caiphe  et  Pilate.")  According 
to  the  Bible  record,  the  arrest  took  place  at  night  in 
violation  of  Hebrew  law.  This  is  an  assumption  as 
to  the  night  feature,  and  it  is  clear  that  whoever  first 
cited  this  as  one  of  the  illegal  features  was  a  modern 
day  writer.    Night  and  day  as  understood  at  the  pres- 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  79 

ent  time,  and  as  understood  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  are 
entirely  different.  There  is  no  question  but  what  the 
arrest  took  place  in  the  neighborhood  of  two  or  three 
o'clock  in  the  morning.  According-  to  the  Bible,  "the 
morning  and  the  evening  were  the  first  day."  If  this  is 
true,  they  certainly  continued  as  such  until  there  was 
a  new  reckoning  and  marking  of  time.  Touching  this 
problem,  we  find  two  solutions.  Granting,  to  save  ar- 
gument, that  the  arrest  was  technically  wrong,  of  what 
matter  is  it  so  long  as  substantial  justice  was  done  by 
the  appeal  court,  which  reviewed  the  case  and  reversed 
the  decision  of  the  Sanhedrin? 

But  was  the  arrest  illegal  for  the  cause  stated?  I 
think  not.  Whether  we  accept  the  earlier  Gospel  nar- 
ratives or  profane  history  as  touching  the  point,  we 
shall  find  that  the  arrest  of  Jesus  was  within  the  hours 
which  constituted  the  day.  We  have  further  evidence 
by  way  of  elucidation  of  this  problem,  a  valuable  au- 
thority which  should  be  considered. 

In  the  great  library  at  Louvain  there  is  to  be  found 
one  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  in  existence ;  it  is  known 
as  the  "Book  of  Hours."  It  is  supposed  to  have  been 
written  in  the  Ninth  Century ;  it  contains  many  quota- 
tions ante-dating  this  period  from  the  very  earliest 
authorities  on  the  subject  of  "time."  A  literal  trans- 
lation taken  from  leaf  74  and  following  gives  us  the 
extracts  below : 

"What  constituted  the  day  during  the  first  century 


8o  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

may  be  considered  as  what  it  was  for  the  century  fol- 
lowing. This  depended  somewhat  on  the  section  of 
country.  In  Egypt  along  the  time  of  the  Christian 
era,  an  hour  before  sun-up  and  the  same  length  of 
time  after  sun-setting  was  regarded  as  the  day;  all 
else  night."  Turning  to  leaf  105,  the  translation 
shows :  "The  day  begins  whenever  there  is  light. 
Whether  the  sun  has  appeared  or  not,  so  long  as  its 
light  is  diffused  sufficiently  it  can  be  considered  the 
day  has  opened."  Again  we  find  on  leaf  117,  "from 
light  in  the  morning  until  darkness  at  night."  Strictly 
speaking,  the  entire  period  of  the  earth's  revolution 
on  its  axis  is  termed  a  day. 

It  is  known  that  in  Judah  and  throughout  Egypt  at 
the  time  of  Christ  the  rising  of  the  sun  was  near  what 
now  corresponds  to  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  dur- 
ing the  months  between  August  and  February,  while 
for  the  months  between  March  and  July  the  rising  of 
the  sun  was  fully  forty  minutes  earlier. 

With  the  foregoing  we  are  satisfied  to  leave  this 
disputed  point.  There  are  readers  who  will  not  be 
reasoned  with ;  there  are  too  many  who  will  not  be 
convinced,  no  matter  what  the  facts  or  evidence  pre- 
sented. 

What  was  charged  against  Jesus,  and  did  it  con- 
stitute a  crime  in  law?  The  charge  before  the  San- 
hedrin  was  blasphemy — a  crime  punishable  by  death 
under  the  Jewish  law.    The  statements  of  the  accused, 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  8i 

volunteered  by  him  possibly  by  way  of  explanation,  or 
justification,  all  went  to  the  res  gcste  of  the  charge. 

That  there  was  evidence  introduced  is  borne  out  by 
both  profane  and  Evangelical  proof. 

"For  many  bare  false  witness  against  him,  but  their 
witness  agreed  not  together." 

In  what  respect  there  was  a  disagreement  of  wit- 
nesses we  have  no  information.  One  is  reported  to 
have  said :  "I  heard  him  say  T  will  destroy  this  temple 
that  is  made  with  hands  and  within  three  days  I  will 
build  another  made  without  hands.'  "  The  seeming 
difference  in  their  testimony  related  to  Jesus'  statement 
in  regard  to  his  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  was 
not  otherwise  contradicted.  This  was  but  one  portion 
of  the  charge,  the  other  being  that  of  pretending  to  be 
the  son  of  God.  These  were  but  different  phases  of 
the  same  charge  of  blasphemy.  It  is  of  record  that 
Caiaphas  during  the  investigation  asked,  "Art  thou 
Christ,  the  son  of  the  Blessed?"  And  Jesus  answered 
boldly  and  emphatically  "I  am."  (Mark  xiv,  62.) 
It  will  thus  be  seen  that  upon  his  own  testimony  and 
that  of  many  witnesses  agreeing  in  all  essential  details 
as  the  law  required,  was  the  Nazarene  condemned  to 
death.  It  will  help  to  simplify  matters,  and  to  arrive  at 
a  clearer  understanding  if  a  distinction  be  held  in 
mind  between  the  judicial  and  extra-judicial  charges 
made  against  Jesus.  The  judicial  charges  having  ref- 
erence only  to  those  made  by  his  accusers  upon  which 


82  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

he  was  tried  by  the  Sanhedrin.  By  extra-judicial 
charges,  those  which  had  been  made  out  of  court  at 
many  times  and  places  throughout  that  country.  The 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  upon  his  trial  was  largely 
with  relation  to  statements  which  he  had  made  in 
Jerusalem,  Galilee  and  elsewhere.  It  is  necessary  to 
mention  these  in  order  to  throw  the  most  perfect  light 
upon  the  specific  charges  at  the  trial.  (See  Abbott's 
"Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  pages  440  to  500.)  It  was 
charged  that  he  was  a  preacher  of  turbulence  and  fac- 
tion, that  he  flattered  the  poor  and  condemned  the  rich, 
that  he  denounced  whole  cities,  that  he  gathered  about 
him  a  rabble  of  harlots  and  drunkards  under  the  pre- 
tense of  reforming  them ;  that  he  subverted  the  laws 
and  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  commonwealth,  and  in 
their  place  built  up  an  unauthorized  legislation  of  his 
own  liking;  that  he  had  no  regard  for  society,  nor  of 
religion,  but  commended  the  idolatrous  Samaritan 
while  he  damned  the  holy  priest  and  pious  Levite. 
That  he  tore  down  the  solemn  sanctions  of  holy  re- 
ligion, did  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners  without 
washing  his  hayds,  disregarded  all  obligations  of  the 
Sabbath. 

These  and  many  other  charges  were  doubtless  pre- 
sented to  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  during  the 
course  of  the  trial,  and  yet  but  the  one  charge  of  blas- 
phemy can  be  said  to  have  any  direct  connection  with 
the  record  in  the  case. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  83 

We  are  satisfied  to  rest  content  with  the  record  of 
the  trial  as  given  by  Matthew  (Matthew  xxvi,  60-61) 
and  by  Mark  (Mark  xiv,  57-58)  ;  while  the  testimony 
as  given  on  the  trial  as  narrated  by  these  two  scribes  is 
not  in  whole  accord,  it  is  entirely  upon  unimportant 
points  that  they  disagree.  We  cannot  understand  why 
Luke  and  John  make  no  reference  to  what  transpired 
during  the  first  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin.  Matthew, 
however,  says:  "At  the  last  came  two  false  witnesses 
and  said,  'This  fellow  said  I  am  able  to  destroy  the 
Temple  of  God  and  to  build  it  in  three  days.'  "  While 
referring  to  the  same  statement,  the  version  of  Mark  is 
as  follows :  "And  there  arose  certain,  and  bare  false 
witness  against  him,  saying,  'We  heard  him  say  I  will 
destroy  this  temple  that  is  made  with  hands  and  with- 
in three  days  I  will  build  another  made  without 
hands.'  "  It  would  certainly  be  a  captious  critic  who 
would  note  a  material  difference  in  this  evidence.  We 
can  find  no  reasoning  which  would  indicate  that  the 
testimony  thus  given  was  in  any  sense  false,  for 
throughout  that  entire  country  in  diverse  places  and 
at  times  Jesus  unquestionably  made  even  stronger 
statements  as  to  his  power  to  resurrect,  to  build,  and 
to  destroy. 

What  his  meaning  was  in  reference  to  the  Temple 
we  believe  is  to-day  understood  as  the  temporal  body, 
rather  than  the  building,  which  it  is  accredited  to.  It 
may  have  been  that  Jesus  used  allegorical  language, 


84  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

yet  in  the  light  of  John  ii,  20,  the  witnesses  certainly 
had  a  right  to  infer  that  a  material  interpretation  be 
given  to  his  words,  and  that  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem 
was  what  he  meant.  He  was  asked,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, "Forty  and  six  years  was  this  Temple  in  build- 
ing, and  wilt  thou  rear  it  again  in  three  days?"  In 
answer  thereto,  according  to  John  ii,  19-21,  there  was 
nothing  threatening  in  his  reply,  but  he  gave  them  to 
understand  as  strongly  as  absolutism  can,  what  he 
could  do  when  he  said,  "Destroy  this  Temple  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up." 

The  facts  adduced  at  the  trial  and  suggested 
throughout  by  the  adjuration  addressed  to  Jesus  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  was  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  his 
emphatic  declaration  that  he  was,  clearly  constituted 
blasphemy  under  the  Mosaic  code.  Leviticus  xxiv, 
15-20,  is  undoubtedly  the  blasphemy  statute  of  the 
code  stated.  In  Salvador's  celebrated  treatise,  "His- 
toire  des  Institutions  de  Moise,"  is  a  chapter  devoted 
to  the  question  of  the  judgment  and  condemnation  of 
Jesus.  He  says :  "But  Jesus,  in  presenting  new  theo- 
ries and  in  giving  new  forms  to  those  already  promul- 
gated, speaks  of  himself  as  God;  his  disciples  repeat 
it,  and  the  subsequent  events  prove  in  the  most  satis- 
factory manner  that  they  thus  understood  him.  This 
was  shocking  blasphemy  in  the  eyes  of  the  citizens; 
the  law  commands  them  to  follow  Jehovah  alone,  the 
only  true  God ;  not  to  believe  in  gods  of  flesh  and 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  85 

bones,  resembling  men  or  women;  neither  to  spare  or 
listen  to  a  prophet  who,  even  doing  miracles,  should 
proclaim  a  new  god,  a  god  neither  they  nor  their 
fathers  had  known.  The  question  already  raised 
among  the  people  was  this :  Has  Jesus  become  God  ? 
But  the  Senate  having  adjudged  that  Jesus,  son  of 
Joseph,  born  in  Bethlehem,  had  profaned  the  name  of 
God  by  usurping  it  to  himself,  a  mere  citizen,  applied 
to  him  the  law  in  the  13th  Chapter  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  the  20th  verse  in  Chapter  18,  according  to  which 
every  prophet,  even  he  who  works  miracles,  must  be 
punished,  when  he  speaks  of  a  God  unknown  to  the 
Jews  and  their  fathers,  the  capital  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced. 

If  it  was  under  the  law  as  exemplified  in  Deuter- 
onomy under  which  the  charges  against  Jesus  were 
laid,  and  we  can  find  no  reason  to  question  it,  when  the 
charge  laid  against  him  was  one  identical  with  idol- 
atry, i.e.,  of  seducing  the  people  from  their  allegiance 
to  Jehovah,  and  trying  to  induce  them  to  go  off  after 
false  gods.  That  section  of  the  law  referred  to  is  as 
follows : 

"If  there  arise  among  you  a  prophet,  or  a  dreamer 
of  dreams,  and  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder,  and 
the  sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof  he  spake 
unto  thee,  saying,  Let  us  go  after  other  gods  which 
thou  hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them;  thou  shalt 
not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  prophet,  or  that 


86  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

dreamer  of  dreams;  for  the  Lord  your  God  proveth 
you,  to  know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord  your  God  with 
all  your  heart  and  with  all  your  soul.  Ye  shall  walk 
after  the  Lord  your  God,  and  fear  Him,  and  keep  His 
commandments  and  obey  His  voice,  and  ye  shall  serve 
Him,  and  cleave  unto  Him.  And  that  prophet,  or 
that  dreamer  of  dreams,  shall  be  put  to  death ;  because 
he  hath  spoken  to  turn  you  away  from  the  Lord  your 
God,  which  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  and 
redeemed  you  out  of  the  house  of  bondage,  to  thrust 
thee  out  of  the  way  which  the  Lord  thy  God  com- 
manded thee  to  walk  in." 

Jesus  then  had  called  himself  the  son  of  God  in  the 
sense  of  being  equal  with  God  Himself.  His  affirma- 
tion "I  am."  that  is,  Christ  the  son  of  God,  brought 
home  his  identity  with  the  Father,  his  equality  with 
God,  the  assumption  of  power  and  authority  which  it 
was  believed  alone  belonged  to  Jehovah. 

It  is  entirely  immaterial  whether  the  definition  of 
blasphemy  is  accepted  as  laid  down  by  Deuteronomy, 
or  by  Leviticus.  In  Second  Samuel  xii,  14,  the  word 
"blaspheme"  is  defined  "to  despise  Judaism."  In  I 
Mace,  ii,  6,  blasphemy  means  "idolatry."  In  Job  ii,  5, 
II  Kings  xix,  4-6,  Hosea  vii,  16,  the  term  indicates 
"reproach,"  "derision." 

If  we  accept  the  doctrine  of  Isaiah  (Isa.  Hi,  5,  Ezek. 
\Kxv.    12).  then  the  people  of  Jehovah  and  those  of 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  87 

His  holy  land  might  also  become  victims  of  blasphemy 
equally  with  God, 

It  is  but  fair  to  say  that  a  comprehensive  meaning 
of  blasphemy  may  be  conveyed  by  the  definition  of  the 
term  "treason,"  under  the  governments  of  various 
countries  to-day.  The  statute  25  Edw.  iii,  2,  defines 
seven  different  ways  of  committing  treason  against 
the  King  of  England,  while  the  lex  Julia  wajestatis 
promulgated  by  Augustus  C?esar  comprehended  all  the 
ancient  laws  that  had  before  been  enacted  into  one 
statute,  to  punish  transgressors  against  the  Roman 
state.  (Greenidge,  "Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's 
Time,'  pp.  427,  507,  518.) 

To  sum  up,  the  great  Sanhedrin  had  jurisdiction 
of  the  charges  of  sedition  and  blasphemy  under  which 
Jesus  was  tried,  both  of  these  crimes  coming  within 
the  cognizance  of  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the  Jews. 
(Andrews,  "The  Life  of  Our  Lord,"  p.  510.) 

There  was  a  regular  legal  trial  of  Jesus  before  the 
Sanhedrin,  which  actually  conducted  a  regular  formal 
trial.  (Gesch,  d.  Judenth,  vol.  I.,  pp.  402-409;  "Life 
and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,"  vol.  IL,  p.  553.) 

We  have  already  satisfactorily  answered  the  ques- 
tion that  Jesus,  the  man,  under  the  Jewish  law  was 
guilty  of  blasphemy.  According  to  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  Jesus  blasphemed  by  claiming  the  power 
which  alone  belonged  to  God,  of  forgiving  sins  and 
exercising  a  supernatural  power  without  the  author- 


88  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

ship  and  guidance  of  the  Almighty;  in  asserting  em- 
phatically "I  and  my  Father  are  one."     (John  x,  30- 

No  less  an  authority  than  that  of  Mr.  Simon  Green- 
leaf,  undoubtedly  the  greatest  Christian  writer  on  the 
law  of  evidence  and  the  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists, 
admirably  summarizes  the  legal  viewpoint  when  he 
says :  "If  we  regard  Jesus  simply  as  a  Jewish  citizen, 
and  with  no  higher  character,  this  conviction  seems 
substantially  right  in  point  of  law,  though  the  trial 
were  not  legal  in  all  its  forms.  For,  whether  the  ac- 
cusation were  founded  on  the  first  or  the  second  com- 
mand in  the  Decalogue,  or  on  the  law  laid  down  in 
the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  or  on  that  in 
the  eighteenth  chapter  and  the  twentieth  verse,  he  had 
violated  them  all  by  assuming  to  himself  powers  be- 
longing alone  to  Jehovah.  It  is  not  easy  to  perceive 
on  what  ground  his  conduct  could  have  been  defended 
before  any  tribunal,  unless  upon  that  of  his  super- 
human character.  No  lawyer,  it  is  conceived,  would 
think  of  placing  his  defense  upon  any  other  basis." 

It  will  be  noted  that  Mr.  Greenleaf  nowhere  at- 
tempts to  enumefate  any  errors  legally  committed  dur- 
ing the  trial,  or  irregularities.  Mr.  Greenleaf  must, 
therefore,  have  concluded  that  the  substantial  legal 
right  of  the  presumption  of  innocence  existing  in  favor 
of  the  man  Jesus  was  overthrown  by  competent  and 
satisfactory  evidence.    And  if,  as  has  been  assumed  by 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  89 

the  writers  who  have  taken  this  position,  that  all  forms 
of  law  were  outraged  and  the  rights  of  the  accused 
were  trampled  under  foot  during  the  trial  of  Jesus, 
that  errors  were  numerous  in  the  proceedings,  it  is 
an  assumption  born  of  naive  impudence  and  certainly 
not  based  upon  any  authentic  record  of  the  trial  itself. 

That  our  contention  as  it  relates  to  the  trial  before 
the  Jewish  Senate  and  its  subsequent  dismissal  by  the 
Roman  governor  is  correct,  is  borne  out  by  the  fact 
that  the  penalty  which  Jesus  paid,  that  of  death  by 
crucifixion,  was  not  a  penalty  permitted  under  the  Jew- 
ish law.  This  form  of  punishment  was  unknown  to 
the  ancient  Hebrews ;  the  penalty  of  death  for  a  proven 
offense  was  enforced  among  them  by  burning,  stran- 
gling, decapitation  and  stoning.  While  crucifixion  as 
applied  as  a  penalty  in  the  case  of  Jesus  was  a  punish- 
ment inflicted  for  treason  under  the  Roman  law.  It 
therefore  follows  as  the  punishment  or  penalty  en- 
forced was  one  known  only  to  the  Roman  law,  that  the 
crime  charged  and  proven  for  which  the  penalty  was 
imposed,  was  necessarily  one  against  the  Roman  law. 

The  tragic  events  leading  up  to  and  including  the 
famous  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin  are  vividly  por- 
trayed by  that  prince  of  historians  and  learned  writer, 
Rab.  Tagore,  one  of  the  great  teachers  of  the  Rishis. 
An  accurate  translation  of  his  description  follows : 

"It  is  near  morning,  but  the  devotees  of  an  imperial 
ecclesiasticism  are  alert.     With  murderous  jealousy 


90  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

they  anticipate  the  delivery  into  their  hands  of  one  for 
whom  they  had  paid  a  price — one  who  must  be  put 
out  of  the  way,  or  their  honors  and  emoluments  be 
forfeit.  Rich  old  Annas  paces  the  marble  court  of  his 
palace  and  listens  for  the  footfalls  of  the  returning 
band.  He  will  soon  have  the  satisfaction  of  looking 
into  the  face  of  the  iconoclastic  Galilean,  who  has  im- 
periled his  vast  revenues  by  twice  cleansing  the  Temple 
of  the  traffickers  whom  he  had  unlawfully  licensed  to 
trade  there.  He  will  see  those  hands  bound  with  cords 
instead  of  plaiting  cords  into  a  whip  to  drive  out  the 
buyers  and  sellers.  Caiaphas  also,  Annas'  son-in-law 
and  acting  high  priest,  is  on  the  qui  vive  to  carry  into 
execution  his  judgment.  The  chief  priests  and  Phar- 
isees are  anticipating  their  retaliation  upon  one  who 
has  denounced  them  as  serpents ;  who  has  snatched  the 
mask  from  their  hypocrisy.  So  all  hell  is  alert  that 
night  to  enjoy  its  short-lived  triumph.  A  sardonic 
smile  passes  over  the  face  of  Annas,  as  his  dull  ears 
catch  the  tramp  of  the  guard.  He  hurries  into  his 
grand  salon,  and  mounts  his  dais  with  tottering  step. 
The  examination  of  Jesus  here  is  purely  informal.  It 
is  just  such  a  courte*>y  extended  by  Caiaphas  to  Annas 
as,  a  little  later,  Pilate  extended  to  Herod.  It  will 
have  weight,  too,  with  the  multitude,  that  the  con- 
demned is  first  arraigned  before  one  who,  according 
to  Moses'  law,  is  still  a  high  priest. 

"There  sits  the  Sanhedrin  in  form  of  a  horseshoe, 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  91 

every  member  being  present;  the  high  priest  at  the 
*toe,'  and  a  scribe  with  inkhorn  and  parchment  at 
either  'cork.'  In  the  space  between  the  scribes  stands 
the  accused,  in  full  view  of  the  semi-circle  of  vener- 
ables,  who  sit  cross-legged.  By  his  refusal  to  plead, 
Jesus  denied  the  validity  of  the  process.  The  silent, 
dignified  accused  is  fast  throwing  the  court  into  con- 
fusion. It  is  at  its  wits'  end,  when  bold  and  unscru- 
pulous Caiaphas  intervenes.  He  springs  from  his  red 
hassock,  and,  rushing  at  Jesus  with  rage  in  look  and 
gesture,  bids  him  answer  the  witnesses. 

"But  before  the  vociferating  judge,  with  his  soiled 
ermine,  Jesus  maintains  his  imperturbable  silence.  This 
on  the  part  of  a  defendant  in  an  Oriental  court  is  a 
complete  anomaly.  Profuse  protestations  of  inno- 
cence, dramatic  appeals,  wild  gesture,  copious  tears — 
these  are  the  rule.  The  silent  dignity  of  Jesus  ar- 
rested the  attention  and  struck  the  conscience  of  each 
court  before  which  he  was  brought. 

"A  last  expedient  occurs  to  the  fertile  mind  of 
Caiaphas.  He  will  put  Jesus  in  the  dilemma  of  deny- 
ing his  Messiahship  by  persisting  in  his  silence,  or 
affording  ground  of  conviction  for  blasphemy  by  af- 
firming it.  By  most  solemn  abjuration  he  puts  him  to 
the  test,  and  propounds  his  crucial  question.  There  is 
not  a  moment's  hesitation.  The  case  against  him  ha\'- 
ing  utterly  collapsed,  he  breaks  his  silence.  He  fur- 
nishes them  with  the  ground  of  conviction,  which  they 


92  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

had  failed  to  find.  They  do  not  stop  to  question 
whether  his  testimony  is  true  or  not.  It  might  readily 
be  shown  how  his  character  and  career  fulfills  the 
prophecies.  There  are  ten  thousand  witnesses  of  his 
Messianic  and  wonder-working  power  who  might 
have  been  summoned.  But,  no!  the  case  is  prejudiced, 
the  court  bent  on  conviction.  With  dramatic  effect 
Caiaphas  tears  his  costly  robes  into  shreds  and  pre- 
cipitately a  vote  is  taken  and  recorded.  Before  this  is 
done  a  fervent  appeal  for  the  accused  is  made  by  two 
members  of  the  Court.  Gamaliel,  the  Ancient,  pre- 
sents every  doubt  for  Jesus  that  can  be  taken  advan- 
tage of.  He  was  followed  by  Rabbi  Narada,  of  the 
Chamber  of  Elders.  He  refuted  the  charge  that  the 
accused  had  spoken  blasphemous  words  against  Moses 
and  against  God.  It  was  of  no  avail.  All  the  members 
of  the  Chamber  save  those  two  who  spoke  for  the  ac- 
cused voted  for  conviction — many  explaining  their 
votes  owing  to  the  admissions  of  the  prisoner,  the  wit- 
nesses and  the  law  governing.  The  verdict  being 
overwhelmingly  for  guilt,  Jesus  was  taken  with  the 
court's  finding,  and  the  witnesses  who  gave  evidence 
against  him,  to  Pilate  for  a  review  of  the  case  and 
sentence." 

Rabbi  Wise,  in  his  "Martyrdom  of  Jesus,"  p.  74, 
says :  "If  none  of  the  judges  defend  the  culprit,  the 
verdict  of  guilty  was  invalid." 

It  will  be  noted  that  Jesus  was  defended  by  his 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  93 

friend,  Gamaliel,  one  of  the  scribes,  as  well  as  by 
Narada,  son  of  Hacksab.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
in  Hebrew  trials,  where  the  death  penalty  might  be 
inflicted,  there  were  no  prosecutors;  this  part  being 
played  by  the  accusers,  who  were  witnesses  against  the 
culprit.  Again,  there  were  no  lawyers  nor  advocates 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  especially  in  the  modern 
sense;  the  judges  who  had  to  pass  upon  the  case  were 
the  defenders.  A  verdict  which  showed  a  unanimous 
vote  of  guilty  indicated  clearly  that  the  prisoner  had 
no  friend  or  defender.  To  the  Jewish  mind  this  ar- 
gued conspiracy  against  the  accused.  So  far  as  the 
record  goes  in  every  case  tried  before  the  Sanhedrin, 
those  who  defended  the  prisoner  voted  in  favor  of 
acquittal,  whatever  may  have  been  their  real  feeling 
as  to  innocence. 

Undoubtedly  Gamaliel  and  Narada,  the  first  of  the 
Chamber  of  Scribes  and  the  second  a  simple  priest, 
presented  to  the  court  the  variations  which  occurred 
in  the  testimony  of  witnesses  called  against  Jesus. 
They  must  have  pointed  out  that  the  statements  of  the 
accused  upon  which  his  guilt  w^as  sought  were  allegor- 
ical, and  in  that  sense  could  not  be  used  against  him. 

We  are  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  his  guilt  was 
found  upon  all  of  the  statements  combined,  as  well  as 
upon  his  own  admission ;  and  that  these  various  shreds 
of  testimony  went  to  make  up  the  charge  of  blas- 
phemy.    While  the  narrative  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  by 


94  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

Rabbi  Tagore  is  clearly  written  in  a  spirit  which  indi- 
cates that  he  could  not  have  been  in  sympathy  with 
the  writer  who  contends  for  the  legality  of  the  trial, 
}'et  he  does  furnish  information  along  certain  lines 
which  corroborate  the  position  here  taken.  He  shows 
that  the  full  number  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  present ; 
he  shows  that  Jesus  was  defended  by  two  members  of 
that  great  body  before  whom  he  was  tried,  and  he 
shows  that  while  the  verdict  was  overwhelmingly 
against  the  accused,  that  it  was  not  unanimous. 

Touching  upon  that  portion  of  the  trial  and  wit- 
nesses examined,  wherein  it  is  shown  there  is  a  varia- 
tion between  those  who  testified  against  Jesus,  we  can- 
not find  that  there  is  any  substantial  difference,  but 
rather  that  the  variations  are  those  which  would  rather 
tend  to  establish  the  truth  of  a  story  rather  than  to 
discredit  it.  Is  it  probable  that  two  or  three  men  could 
listen  to  the  argument  of  counsel  or  the  mouthings  of 
a  labor  agitator,  and  some  days  thereafter  repeat  sep- 
arate and  distinct  from  each  other  the  exact  words  of 
the  speaker?  Rather  they  would  give  in  substantia- 
tive  form  the  sentiments  expressed.  Touching  upon 
this  point,  the  wrifer  cannot  do  better  than  quote  from 
Paley,  in  his  "Evidences  of  Christianity,"  wherein  he 
says : 

"I  know  not  a  more  rash  or  more  unphilosophical 
conduct  of  the  understanding  than  to  reject  the  sub- 
stance of  a  story  by  reason  of  some  diversity  in  the 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  95 

circumstances  with  which  it  is  related.  The  usual 
character  of  human  testimony  is  substantial  truth  un- 
der circumstantial  variety.  This  is  what  the  daily  ex- 
perience of  courts  of  justice  teaches.  In  accounts  of  a 
transaction  from  the  mouths  of  different  witnesses  it 
is  seldom  that  it  is  not  possible  to  pick  out  apparent  or 
real  inconsistencies  between  them.  These  inconsisten- 
cies are  studiously  displayed  by  an  adverse  pleader, 
but  often  times  with  little  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  the  judges.  On  the  contrary,  a  close  and  minute 
agreement  induces  the  suspicion  of  confederacy  and 
fraud.  When  written  histories  touch  upon  the  same 
scenes  of  action,  the  comparison  almost  always  affords 
ground  for  a  like  reflection.  Numerous,  and  some- 
times important,  variations  present  themselves,  not 
seldom;  also,  absolute  and  final  contradictions;  yet 
neither  one  nor  the  other  are  deemed  sufficient  to  shake 
the  credibility  of  the  main  fact." 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  history  of  the  great 
Sanhedrin,  its  origin,  organization,  the  qualification  of 
its  members,  its  jurisdiction,  and  wiiat  constituted  a 
valid  quorum  for  trial  purposes.  In  discussing  these 
questions,  the  authority  upon  which  we  rely  must 
largely  come  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  or  from 
ancient  works  treating  of  the  Jewish  people.  By  no 
means  should  the  Talmud  be  omitted,  as  therein  can 
be  found  much  information  whose  authenticity  and 
authority  is  unquestioned. 


96  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

There  were  three  kinds  of  Jewish  tribunals :  the 
Great  Sanhedrin,  the  Minor  Sanhedrin,  and  the  lower 
tribunal  or  Court  of  Three. 

The  first  of  these,  properly  denominated  Grand 
Council,  was  the  high  court  of  justice  and  supreme 
tribunal  of  the  Jews.  Its  full  number  was  seventy-one 
members;  its  powers  were  both  elective  and  executive. 
Independent  of  its  judicial  functions  matters  of  educa- 
tion, of  government  and  religion  were  here  decided. 
In  every  sense  it  was  the  national  parliament  of  He- 
brew Theocracy.  No  more  august  tribunal  has  ever 
interpreted  or  administered  justice  or  religion  to  man. 

The  word  "Sanhedrin"  is  from  the  Greek,  denoting 
strictly  an  ecclesiastical  council  in  a  sitting  posture.  It 
is  also  said  to  suggest  all  the  gravity  and  solemnity  of 
an  Oriental  synod.  This  body  has  also  been  termed 
"The  Council  of  Ancients."  In  the  second  book  of 
Maccabees,  Chap.  I.,  lo,  it  is  called  "Gerusia,"  or 
Senate;  while  in  the  Vulgate  (Matt,  xxvi,  59)  it  is 
called  Concilium,  or  Grand  Council.  Though  the  term 
more  generally  employed  throughout  the  Greek  text 
of  the  Gospels,  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins,  the  Tal- 
mud and  the  works  of  Josephus  is  that  of  Sanhedrin 
(Josephus,  "Ant."  xiv,  Chap,  v,  4,  Wars  of  the  Jews 
I.,  viii  5,  Talmud,  Sanhedrin). 

If  we  are  to  take  the  Bible  as  our  authority,  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Book  of  Numbers,  xi,  16-17,  we  shall  have 
no  difficulty  in  concluding  that  the  origin  of  the  Great 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  97 

Sanhedrin  was  in  the  wilderness;  that  it  was  estab- 
lished by  Moses  under  divine  commission.  "Gather 
unto  me  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel  whom  thou 
knowest  to  be  the  eldest  of  the  people  and  officers  of 
them ;  and  bring  them  unto<  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation that  they  may  stand  with  thee."  This  is  the 
language  accredited  to  the  Almighty  in  His  direction 
to  Moses,  and  over  the  seventy  elders  which  were 
congregated  Moses  is  said  to  have  presided,  making 
a  grand  total  of  seventy-one — the  historic  number  re- 
quired to  make  up  the  body  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin. 

This  great  council,  clothed  with  general  judicial  and 
religious  attributes,  we  first  know  of  as  established  at 
Jerusalem  about  170  B.  C. 

There  were  three  Chambers :  the  Chamber  of 
Priests,  composed  of  23 ;  the  Chamber  of  Scribes,  with 
23  members,  and  the  Chamber  of  Elders,  divided  into 
an  equal  number.  This  comprises  a  total  of  69,  which 
together  with  the  two  presiding  officers  made  up  the 
required  number.  There  were  certain  qualifications 
which  were  requisite  to  entitle  an  applicant  to  mem- 
bership and  a  seat  in  the  Great  Sanhedrin. 

1.  He  must  have  been  a  Hebrew  and  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  Hebrews. 

2.  He  must  have  been  learned  in  the  law,  both 
written  and  unwritten. 

3.  He  must  have  had  judicial  experience;  have 
begun  with  one  of  the  local  courts  and  passed  through 


98  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

two  magistracies  in  Jerusalem  (Jose  b.  Halafta,  I.  c). 

4.  He  must  have  been  especially  well  grounded  in 
astronomy,  medicine,  chemistry,  and  familiar  with  the 
arts  of  the  necromancer. 

5.  He  must  have  been  an  accomplished  linguist, 
familiar  with  all  the  languages  of  the  surrounding 
nations.  The  reason  for  this  is  found  that  interpreters 
were  not  allowed  in  Hebrew  courts. 

6.  He  must  have  been  modest,  popular,  of  good 
appearance  and  without  haughty  demeanor. 

7.  He  must  have  been  pious,  strong  and  cour- 
ageous. 

Unless  one  desiring  membership  in  this  great  coun- 
cil had  the  qualifications  hereinbefore  set  out,  then  in 
the  nature  of  things  he  was  disqualified,  although  he 
may  have  liad  all  the  qualifications  stated,  and  yet  if 
he  had  no  regular  trade,  occupation  or  profession  by 
which  he  gained  his  livelihood,  he  w-as  absolutely  dis- 
(jualified. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  note  in  cases  involving  the  death 
penalty,  that  a  man  of  sufficient  years  so  as  to  likely 
have  infirmities  .rendering  him  harsh,  obstinate  and 
unyielding,  or  one  who  never  had  any  children  of  his 
own,  or  a  bastard,  was  disqualified  to  act  as  judge. 
No  young  man  could  sit  in  the  Sanhedrin.  According 
to  the  Rabbis  twenty-five  years  was  the  age  which  en- 
titled a  person  to  be  called  a  man  (Yalkut  "Exodus," 
Sec.   167).     According  to  Sotah  22  b.,  "no  man  was 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  99 

eligible  to  a  seat  until  at  least  forty  years  of  age." 
Outside  of  these  disqualifications,  there  were  those 
which  apply  in  all  our  courts  to-day.  One  who  is 
concerned  or  interested,  or  a  relative  of  the  accused,  or 
who  would  be  benefited  by  the  death  of  the  accused, 
was  not  qualified. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  w^ere  di- 
rected by  two  presiding  officers.  One  of  these  styled 
"Prince"  ("Nasi")  was  the  president  of  the  court; 
the  other  known  as  the  Father  of  the  Tribunal 
(Ab-beth-bin)  was  the  vice-president.  The  presidency 
of  the  council  went  to  him  who  surpassed  his  col- 
leagues in  wisdom.  This  is  asserted  in  Chapter  I.  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  Sanhedrin.  There  were  three 
scribes  seated  respectively  on  the  left  and  right  of  the 
main  body  with  the  third  in  the  center  of  the  hall. 
The  one  on  the  right  recorded  the  names  of  the  judges, 
as  they  voted  for  or  against  the  accused.  The  one  on 
the  left  took  down  the  arguments  for  and  against  the 
prisoner.  He  also  noted  the  names  of  those  wdio  de- 
cided to  condemn,  and  their  reason  therefor.  The 
third  kept  an  account  of  all  proceedings,  so  as  to  check 
back  in  the  case  of  inaccuracy,  from  the  memoranda 
of  his  brother  scribes. 

The  witnesses  to  the  crime  charged  were  the  only 
prosecutors,  and  in  capital  cases  they  too  became  the 
legal  executioners.  The  testimony  of  the  accusers  con- 
stituted both  the  indictment  and  the  evidence.     There 


icx)  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

were  no  lawyers  in  the  modern  sense,  the  judges  and 
disciples  undertook  the  duties  of  the  modern  attorney. 
The  prophets  were  the  sole  orators  of  Hebrew  life, 
but  they  were  not  allowed  to  appear  defending  ac- 
cused persons.  No  compensation  was  paid  to  the 
judges  for  their  services.  The  position  was  so  high- 
ly prized  that  the  struggles  and  sacrifices  of  a  life- 
time were  not  considered  too  great  to  pay  for  a  seat 
in  the  Great  Sanhedrin.  This  body  convened  as  occa- 
sion required,  although  Mondays  and  Thursdays  were 
set  apart  to  accommodate  the  country-folk. 

Just  how  vacancies  were  filled  in  the  membership  it 
is  hard  to  say;  Schurer,  in  his  work  on  the  "Jewish 
People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  says  that  in  front 
of  the  judges  sat  three  rows  of  learned  disciples,  each 
of  them  having  his  regular  place.  Should  it  be  neces- 
sary to  promote  one  of  them  to  the  office  of  judge, 
one  from  the  foremost  row  was  selected,  while  his 
place  was  in  turn  supplied  from  the  second  row,  and 
so  on.     (Sanhedrin  iv,  4.) 

Twenty-three  members  constituted  a  quorum,  this 
being  the  full  number  of  the  membership  of  a  Minor 
Sanhedrin.  In  all  criminal  trials,  a  majority  of  less 
than  two  votes  for  condemnation  failed.  (Sanhedrin 
iv,  I.) 

Under  the  Hebrew  law  a  unanimous  verdict  of 
guilty  rendered  on  the  day  of  trial  constituted  an 
acquittal ;  a  second  session  of  the  court  was  necessary 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  loi 

in  order  to  review  the  facts  and  to  give  every  oppor- 
tunity for  every  element  of  mercy  to  come  into  con- 
sideration. 

What  was  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Jewish  Senate? 
It  is  stated  in  the  Mishna  as  follows : 

"The  judgment  of  the  seventy-one  is  besought 
when  the  affair  concerns  a  whole  tribe,  or  is  regarding 
a  false  prophet  or  the  high  priest ;  when  it  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  war  shall  be  declared  or  not;  when  it 
has  for  its  object  the  enlargement  of  Jerusalem  or  its 
suburbs ;  whether  tribunals  of  twenty-three  shall  be 
instituted  in  the  provinces,  or  to  declare  that  a  town 
has  become  defiled,  and  to  place  it  under  ban  of  ex- 
communication." 

Edward  Gibbon  has  also  defined  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  same  court  as  follows : 

"With  regard  to  civil  objects,  it  was  the  supreme 
court  of  appeal ;  with  regard  to  criminal  matters,  a 
tribunal  constituted  for  the  trial  of  all  offences  that 
were  committed  by  men  in  any  public  station,  or  that 
affected  the  peace  and  majesty  of  the  people.  Its 
most  frequent  and  serious  occupation  was  the  exer- 
cise of  judicial  power.  As  a  council  of  state  and  as 
a  court  of  justice,  it  possessed  many  prerogatives. 
Every  power  was  derived  from  its  authority,  every 
law  was  ratified  by  its  sanction." 

While  authorities  seem  to  agree  that  the  full  mem- 
bership of  the  Sanhedrin  was  present  and  took  part 


I02  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

in  the  trial  of  Jesus,  yet  we  are  unable  to  give  bio- 
graphical sketches  of  all  those  who  composed  the 
chamber.  We  know  something  of  over  forty  that 
judged  Jesus;  but  who'  the  other  characters,  their 
names  and  standing  were,  we  are  unable  to  say.  The 
task  of  compiling  this  membership  has  been  time  and 
again  undertaken.  In  this  late  century  of  historical 
study  we  are  only  enabled  to  give  sketches  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  judges.  The  evidence  upon  which  we 
rely  for  this  information  is  taken  from  the  books  of 
the  Evangelists,  the  writings  of  Josephus,  the  histo- 
rian, the  pages  of  the  Talmud,  and  the  History  and 
Geography  of  Palestine.  In  the  Council  of  the  High 
Priests  we  find : 

Caiaphas,  high  priest  then  in  office;  held  this  office 
for  eleven  years — during  the  entire  term  of  Pilate's 
administration  (25-36  A.  D.).  He  presided  during 
this  celebrated  trial,  and  the  Passion  history  as  given 
by  the  Evangelists  has  made  him  known  to  us.  (See 
Matt,  xxvi,  3 ;  Luke  iii,  2,  etc. ;  Jos.,  "Ant."  B.XVIII. 
C  II.  2.) 

Ananos,  held  the  office  of  high  priest  for  seven 
years  under  Coponius,  Ambivus,  and  Rufus  (7-1 1 
A.  D.).  He  was  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  and 
even  though  out  of  office,  was  frequently  consulted  on 
matters  of  importance.  The  office  of  high  priest  of 
this  great  body  remained  for  fifty  years  without  in- 
terruption in  the  family  of  Ananos;  five  of  his  sons 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  103 

successively  assumed  its  dignity.  (Luke  iii,  2;  John 
xviii,  13,  24;  Acts  iv,  6;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XV.  C.III.  i ; 
XX.  IX.  I,  3;  "Jewish  Wars"  B.IV.  V.  2,  6,  7.) 

Eleazar  was  high  priest  for  one  year  under  Vale- 
rius Grattus  (23-24  A.D.).  He  was  the  eldest  son 
of  Ananos.     (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XVIII.  II.  2.) 

Jonathan,  son  of  Ananos,  simple  priest  at  that  time ; 
high  priest  for  one  year,  taking  the  place  of  Caiaphas 
when  the  latter  was  deposed  after  the  disgrace  of 
Pilate,  by  Vitellius,  Governor-General  of  Syria  {T,y 
A.  D.).     (Jos.,  "Ant,"  B.XVIII.  IV.  3.) 

Theophilus,  son  of  Ananos,  also  simple  priest  at  that 
time,  but  made  high  priest  in  the  place  of  his  brother 
Jonathan,  when  he  was  deposed  by  Vitellius.  Theoph- 
ilus held  the  office  for  five  years  (39-42  A.  D.).  (Jos., 
"Ant.,"  B.XIX.  VI.,  2;  Munk,  "Hist,  de  la  Pales- 
tine," p.  568.) 

Matthias,  son  of  Ananos.  Simple  priest  at  that 
time;  afterward  became  high  priest  for  two  years  (42- 
44  A.  D.),  succeeding  Simon  Cantharus,  who  was 
deposed  by  King  Herod  Agrippa.  (Jos.,  "Ant.," 
XIX.  VI.  4.) 

Ananus,  son  of  Ananos.  Simple  priest  at  the  time ; 
made  high  priest  by  Herod  Agrippa  after  the  death 
of  the  Roman  governor,  Portius  Festus  (63  A.  D.). 
He  was  a  Sadducee  of  extravagant  zeal,  and  was  de- 
posed at  the  end  of  a  few  months  by  Albanus,  who 
succeeded   Portius   Festus,   for  having  illegally   con- 


104  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

demned  the  apostle  James  to  be  stoned.  (Acts  xxiii, 
2,  xxiv,  i;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XX.  IX.   i.) 

Joazar,  high  priest  for  a  term  of  six  years  during 
the  latter  days  of  Herod  the  Great  and  the  first  years 
of  Archelaus  (4  B.  C.-2  A.  D.).  He  was  the  son  of 
Simon  Boethus.  (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XV.  IX.  3;  XVII. 
VI.  4;  XVIII.  I.  i;  XIX.  VI.  2.) 

Eleazar,  second  son  of  Simon  Boethus ;  when  Joazar 
was  deprived  of  that  function  by  King  Archelaus  (2 
A.  D.)  Eleazar  succeeded  him,  but  was  deposed  by 
the  same  king  three  months  after  his  installation. 
(Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XVIII.  XIII.  i;  XIX.  VI.  2.) 

Simon  Cantharus,  third  son  of  Simon  Boethus. 
Simple  priest  at  the  time;  made  high  priest  by  King 
Herod  Agrippa  (42  A.  D.),  but  deposed  after  a  few 
months.     (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.XIX.  VI.  2,  4.) 

Jesus  hen  Sie,  succeeded  Eleazar  to  the  high  priest- 
hood, and  held  the  office  for  five  or  six  years  (1-6 
A.  D.)  under  the  reign  of  Archelaus.  (Jos.,  "Ant,," 
XVIT.  XIII.  I.) 

Ismael  hen  Phabi,  was  high  priest  for  nine  years 
under  Procurator  Valerius  Grattus,  predecessor  of 
Pontius  Pilate.  (i'Talmud."  "Pesachim,"  or  "of  the 
Passover,"  fol.  57,  verso;  "Yoma,"  or  the  "Day  of 
Atonement,"  fol.  9,  verso;  35,  recto;  Jos.,  "Ant.," 
XVIII.  II.  2 ;  XX.  VIII.  ii. ;  Bartolocci,  "grand  Bib- 
liotheque  Rabbinique,"  T.IIL,  p.  297;  Munk,  "Pales- 
tine," pp.  563,  575.) 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  105 

Simon  ben  Camithus,  was  high  priest  for  one  year 
under  Procurator  Valerius  Grattus  (24-25  A.  D.). 
("Talmud,"  "Yoma,"  or  the  "Day  of  Atonement," 
fol.  47,  verso;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  II.  2;  Deren- 
bourg,  "Essai  sur  I'historie,"  p.  197,  n.  2.) 

John,  simple  priest.  He  is  made  known  to  us 
through  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — "And  Annas,  the 
high  priest,  and  Caiaphas,  and  John,  and  Alexander, 
and  as  many  as  were  of  the  kindred  of  the  high  priest, 
were  gathered  together  in  Jerusalem."    (Acts  iv,  6.) 

Alexander,  simple  priest ;  also  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  passage  above  quoted. 
Josephus  also  makes  mention  of  him,  and  through 
him  we  learn  that  Alexander  afterwards  became  an 
Alabarch — first  magistrate  of  the  Jews  in  Alexandria. 
He  was  very  rich,  and  at  one  time  loaned  King  Herod 
Agrippa  two  hundred  thousand  pieces  of  silver.  (Acts 
iv,  6;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  VI.  3;  XX.  V.  2;  Petri 
Wesselingii,  "Diatribe  de  Judaeorum  Archontibus," 
Trajecti  ad  Rhenum,  pp.  69-71.) 

Ananias  ben  Nebedeus,  simple  priest  at  that  time; 
w^as  made  high  priest  under  Procurators  Ventideus, 
Cumanus  and  Felix  (48-59  A.  D.).  He  is  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  by  Josephus.  It  was 
this  high  priest  who  delivered  the  Apostle  Paul  to 
Procurator  Felix.  "Ananias,  the  high  priest,  de- 
scended with   the  elders,   and   with   a   certain  orator 


Jo6  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

named  Tertiillus,  who  informed  the  governor  against 
Paul."     (Acts  xxiv,  i.) 

Helcias,  keeper  of  the  treasury  of  the  Temple.  It 
is  thought  that  it  was  from  him  Judas  Iscariot  re- 
ceived the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  as  the  price  of  his 
treason.     (Jos.,  "Ant,"  XX.  VIII.  ii.) 

Sceva.  He  was  one  of  the  principal  priests  whose 
influence  in  the  Sanhedrin  was  great.  He  is  said  to 
have  had  seven  sons  who  devoted  themselves  to  witch- 
craft.    (Acts  xix,  13-14.) 

A  careful  study  of  all  documents  and  authorities  at 
hand  fails  to  disclose  the  names  of  the  remaining 
members  of  the  Chamber  of  the  Priests. 

Next  to  the  priests  the  Chamber  of  the  Scribes  was 
the  most  important.  The  members  of  this  Chamber 
were  chosen  indiscriminately  among  the  Levites  and 
laity;  they  were  doctors  throughout  Israel,  generally 
held  in  the  highest  esteem  and  veneration.  We  are  led 
to  believe,  with  possibly  one  or  two  individual  excep- 
tions, that  the  members  of  this  body  were  better  than 
those  of  the  priests  of  the  Grand  Council. 

Using  such  authorities  as  can  be  found,  the  writer 
submits  the  follow-ing  as  a  list  of  the  names  and  his- 
tories of  the  wise  men  who  composed  the  Chamber  of 
the  Scribes  at  the  trial  of  Jesus : 

Gamaliel,  surnamed  the  ancient.  A  very  worthy 
Israelite,  who  belonged  to  a  noble  family,  and  whose 
name  is   spoken  of  with  honor  in  the  Acts   of  the 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  107 

Apostles,  as  well  as  in  the  Talmud.  He  acquired  so 
great  a  reputation  among  his  people  for  his  scientific 
knowledge  that  the  latter  could  say  of  him,  "With  the 
death  of  the  Rabbi  Gamaliel  the  glory  of  the  law  has 
departed."  Paul  the  Apostle  (Saul)  studied  the  law 
and  Jewish  traditions  under  Gamaliel.  He  had  also 
among  his  disciples  Barnabas  and  Stephen,  the  first 
martyr  for  the  cause  of  Christ.  When  the  members 
of  the  Sanhedrin  had  under  consideration  putting  the 
Apostles  to  death,  it  was  Gamaliel  who  prevented  the 
death  sentence  with  "Ye  men  of  Israel,  take  heed  to 
yourselves  what  ye  intend  to  do  as  touching  these 
men.  .  .  .  And  now  I  say  unto  you,  refrain  from 
these  men,  and  let  them  alone;  for  if  this  counsel  be 
of  men  it  will  come  to  naught;  but  if  it  be  of  God  ye 
cannot  overthrow  it;  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to 
fight  against  God."  Nineteen  years  after  Christ  the 
death  of  Gamaliel  occurred.  (Acts  v.  34-39;  xxii,  3; 
Mishna,  "Sotah,"  or  "the  Woman  Suspected  of  Adul- 
tery," C.  IX. ;  "Sepher  Juchasin,"  or  "the  Book  of  the 
Ancestors,"  p.  53 ;  David  Ganz,  "Germe  de  David  ou 
Chronologic"  to  4768;  Bartolocci,  "Bibliotheca  Magna 
Rabbinica"  T.  i.  pp.  727-32.) 

Simon,  son  of  Gamaliel,  was  a  member  of  the  as- 
sembly. He  became  afterward  an  intimate  friend  of 
John  of  Giscala,  the  celebrated  bandit,  on  account  of 
whose  cruelty  toward  the  Romans  as  well  as  the  Jews 
Titus    ordered   the    pillaging   of    Jerusalem.      Simon 


io8  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

was  killed  in  the  last  assault  in  70  A.  D.  (David 
Ganz,  "Chronologie"  4180;  Mishna,  "Aboth/'  or  "the 
Fathers,"  C.  I. ;  "Talmud,"  Jerusalem,  "Beracith,"  or 
"of  Blessings,"  fol.  6,  verso;  "Historia  Doctorium 
Misnicorum,"  J.  H.  Otthonis,  pp.  110-113;  De 
Champagny,  "Rome  et  la  Judee,"  T.  ii.  86-171.) 

Onkelos,  was  of  heathen  parentage,  but  became  con- 
verted to  Judaism  and  was  one  of  the  most  eminent 
disciples  of  Gamaliel.  He  hated  the  Gentiles  to  such 
an  extent  that  he  had  the  sum  of  money  which  he 
inherited  from  his  parents  cast  into  the  Dead  Sea. 
We  can  understand  that  such  a  disposition  would  not 
look  with  favor  or  tolerance  on  a  man  who  received 
Jews  and  Gentiles  alike.  ("Talmud,"  "Megilla,"  or 
"Festival  of  Esther,"  fol.  3,  verso;  "Bababathra,"  or 
"the  Last  Gate,"  fol.  134,  verso;  "Succa,"  or  "The 
Festival  of  Tabernacles,"  fol.  28,  verso;  "Thoseph- 
thoth,"  or  "Supplements  to  the  Mishna,"  C.  V. ; 
Rabbi  Gedalia,  "Tzalzeleth  Hakkabalah,"  or  "The 
Chain  of  the  Kabalah,"  p.  28 ;  "Histor.  Doct.  Misnic," 
p.  no;  De  Rossi,  "Dizionario  degli  Autori  Ebrei," 
p.  81.) 

Jonathan  ben  Uzial ;  his  time  was  contemporary 
with  that  of  Jesus.  He  was  one  of  his  judges.  He 
was  the  translator  of  the  Prophets,  with  the  exception 
of  Daniel.  ("Talmud,"  "Succa,"  or  "the  Festival  of 
Tabernacles,"  fol.  28,  verso;  David  Ganz,  "Chronol," 
4728;  Gesemius,  "Comm.  on  Isaiah,"  Part  I.,  p.  65; 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  109 

Zunz,  "Culte  divin  des  Juifs,"  Berlin,  1832,  p.  61 ; 
Hannebiirg,  "Revelat  Bibliq.,"  ii.  163.  432.) 

Samuel  Hakaton,  or  tJie  Less,  surnamed  to  distin- 
guish him  from  the  prophet  Samuel.  After  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  he  composed  an  imprecation  against 
the  Christians,  called  "Birchath  Hanminim."  This 
was  inserted  as  an  additional  blessing  in  the  celebrated 
prayer  of  the  synagogue.  These  blessings  belonged  to 
the  time  of  Ezra,  five  centuries  before  the  Christian 
Era.  Samuel  died  eighteen  years  after  Christ.  ("Tal- 
mud," fol.  28,  verso.) 

Chanania  ben  Chiskia.  He  was  a  great  teacher, 
known  as  a  conciliator,  settling  doctrinal  quarrels.  His 
death  occurred  a  little  time  before  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple.     ("  The  Book  of  Ancestors,"  p.  57.) 

Ishmael  ben  Eliza,  renowned  for  the  depth  of  his  wis- 
dom. It  is  said  he  was  learned  in  the  most  mysterious 
things.  After  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  the  daughter 
of  Titus  was  so  struck  with  his  beauty  that  she  ob- 
tained permission  of  her  father  to  have  his  face 
skinned  after  death,  which  skin  she  had  embalmed 
and  perfumed.  She  sent  it  to  Rome  as  a  trophy. 
("Talmud,"  "Aboda  Zarah,"  or  "of  Idolatry,"  C.  I.; 
Rabbi  Gedalia,  "Tzalzeleth  Hakkabalah,"  or  "the 
Chain  of  the  Kabalah,"  p.  29;  "Sepher  Juchasin,"  or 
"the  Book  of  Ancestors,"  p.  25 ;  "Tosephoth  Kid- 
dushin,"  C.  IV.) 

Rabbi  Zadok,  born  forty  years  before  the  trial  of 


no  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

Jesus;  he  died  at  seventy  years  of  age,  shortly  after 
the  burning  of  the  Temple.  ("Aboth,"  or  "Fathers  of 
Tradition,"  iv,  5.) 

Jochanan  ben  Zakai.  The  Rabbinical  gives  this 
Rabbi  an  extraordinary  length  of  life.  He  lived  like 
Moses  for  over  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  The 
first  forty  years  he  consecrated  to  manual  labor;  the 
second  forty  years  to  the  study  of  law,  and  for  the 
last  forty  years  of  his  life  he  was  a  teacher.  He  was 
surnamed  "Splendor  of  Wisdom."  After  the  Temple 
was  destroyed  he  collected  the  remaining  members  of 
the  Sanhedrin  to  Jabnah,  where  he  presided  over  this 
body  for  the  last  years  of  his  life.  He  died  A.  D.  73. 
He  attributed  his  long  life  to  his  wisdom  and  piety. 
Many  references  are  made  to  him.  ("Talmud,"  "Rosh 
Hashanah,"  or  "of  the  New  Year,"  fol.  20,  recto;  31, 
recto;  "Sotah,"  or  "of  the  Woman  Suspected,"  etc., 
IX.  9 ;  " Yoma,"  or  "The  Day  of  Atonement,"  fol.  39, 
recto,  and  43;  "Gittin,"  or  "of  Divorce,"  fol.  56, 
verso  and  recto;  "Succa,"  or  "of  the  Festival  of  Tab- 
ernacles," fol.  28,  verso.) 

Abba  Saul,  an  elder  of  great  height  and  strength. 
According  to  Maimonides,  Abba  Saul  died  before  the 
destruction   of  the  Temple.      ("Maimonides,"   T.   ii, 

P-  375-) 

Rabbi  Chanania;  he  was  surnamed  the  "Vicar  of 
the  Priests;"  he  was  put  to  death  by  the  Romans, 
when  they  possessed  themselves  of  the  city  of  Jeru- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  in 

salem.  (David  Ganz,  ''Chronologic"  4826;  "the  Book 
of  Ancestors,"  p.  57.) 

Rabbi  Eleazar  ben  Partah,  long  a  scribe  in  the  San- 
hedrin  and  one  of  its  most  esteemed  members.  He 
was  a  Rabbi  of  extensive  knowledge.  At  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple  he  was  over  one  hundred  years  old, 
yet  he  lived  for  several  years  after.  ("Talmud," 
"Gittin,"  C.  III.,  4;  "Sepher  Juchasin,"  p.  31.) 

Rabbi  Nachun  Halbalar.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
Sanhedrin  in  the  year  28  A.D.  and  must  have  been 
one  of  the  judges  of  Jesus.  But  little  is  known  of  his 
history.     ("Talmud,"  C.  H.,  6.) 

Rabbi  Simon  Hanizpah.  He  is  known  to  have  be- 
longed to  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  year  A.  D.  28.  ("Tal- 
mud," "Peah,"  C.  n.,  6.) 

According  to  Jewish  tradition,  the  foregoing  were 
the  principal  scribes  or  doctors  that  composed  the  sec- 
ond chamber  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  the  time  of  the  trial 
of  Jesus.  In  Rabbi  Nathan's  book,  "Aruch,"  much  is 
learned  of  them.  This  work  is  a  dictionary  of  great 
authority.     From  this  we  quote: 

"In  the  past  and  more  honorable  times  the  titles  of 
rabbin,  rabbi  or  rav,  to  designate  the  learned  men  of 
Babylon  and  Palestine,  were  unknown;  thus  when 
Hillel  came  from  Babylon  the  title  of  rabbi  was  not 
added  to  his  name.  It  was  the  same  with  the  prophets, 
who  were  styled  simply  Isaiah,  Haggai,  etc.,  and  not 
Rabbi  Isaiah,  Rabbi  Haggai,  etc.     Neither  did  Ezra 


112  THE   LEGALITY    OP 

bring  the  title  of  rabbi  with  him  from  Babylon.  It 
was  not  until  the  time  of  Gamaliel,  Simon,  and 
Jochanan  ben  Zackai  that  this  imposing  title  was  first 
introduced  among  the  worthies  of  the  Sanhedrin.'' 

The  third  chamber  of  the  Sanhedrin,  known  as  the 
Chamber  of  the  Elders,  was  the  least  influential  of 
the  three.  But  few  names  of  the  persons  composing 
it  at  the  time  of  Jesus  have  been  recorded  and  pre- 
served. Among  those  who  are  known  to  have  taken 
part  in  the  trial  are  the  following : 

Joseph  of  Arimathea.  In  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Bible  he  is  called  "Noble  Centurion."  This  is  owing 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  one  of  the  ten  senators  who 
had  principal  authority  in  Jerusalem  under  the 
Romans.  The  Greek  version  of  the  Bible  more  clearly 
marks  his  noble  position.  He  is  known  as  a  good  and 
just  man  who  often  dissented  from  the  counsel  and 
deeds  of  his  fellow-members.  It  has  been  reasoned 
that  because  he  was  an  honorable  counsellor  and  friend 
of  Jesus  he  absented  himself  from  the  trial.  There  is, 
however,  no  authority  for  this  conclusion. 

In  authoritative  works  he  is  many  times  mentioned. 
(Matt,  xxvii,  57-59;  Mark  xv,  43-46;  Luke  xxiii,  50; 
John  xix,  38;  Jacobi  Alting,  "Schilo  seu  de  Vaticinio 
patriarchae  Jacobi,"  p.  310;  Goschler,  Diction.  Ency- 
clopediq. ;  word,  "Arimathea" ;  Cornelius  Lapidus, 
"Comment,  in  Script,  sac,"  edition  Vives,  T.  xv,  p. 
638,  second  col.) 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  113 

Nicodemus.  According  to  St.  John,  he  was  a  Phar- 
isee, a  master  in  Israel,  and  a  prince  of  the  Jews.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  at  one  time  op- 
posed his  colleagues  by  speaking  in  defense  of  Jesus, 
bringing  from  them  the  retort,  "Art  thou  also  a  Gali- 
lean?" It  is  true  that  he  was  one,  but  this  he  kept  so 
far  as  possible  secret.  After  the  crucifixion  it  was 
Nicodemus  who  bought  nearly  a  hundred  pounds  of 
myrrh  and  rare  spices  for  the  burial  of  Jesus.  The 
Talmud  says  there  were  three  most  eminent  men  in 
Jerusalem — Nicodemus  ben  Guerin,  ben  Tzitzith 
Hacksab,  ben  Kalba  Shevnah.  These  men  were  very 
wealthy,  and  could  have  supported  the  entire  city  for 
many  years.  (John  iii,  i-io;  v.  ii,  50-52;  xix,  39; 
"Talmud,"    C.   V.,    fol.    56;   David   Ganz,    "Chron.," 

47-57-) 

Ben  Kalba  Shevnah.     This  elder  occupied  a  very 

high  financial  position,  which  secured  for  him  one  of 
the  first  places  in  the  Chamber  of  Ancients.  Accord- 
ing to  Ritter,  his  memory  is  still  preserved  among  the 
Jews.  ("Talmud,"  C.  V..  fol.  56;  David  Ganz, 
"Chronol.,"  47-57;  Ritter  xvi,  478.) 

Ben  Tzitzith  Hacksab,  known  for  his  effeminacy, 
and  the  third  rich  man  made  known  by  the  "Talmud." 
He  was  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin.  ("Talmud,"  cv., 
fol.  56,  verso;  David  Ganz,  "Chron.,"  47-57.) 

Simon.  We  learn  from  Josephus  that  he  was  of  Jew- 
ish parentage,  highly  esteemed  because  of  his  knowl- 


114  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

edge  of  the  law.  Some  nine  years  after  Christ  it  was 
Simon  who  brought  an  accusation  against  King  Herod 
Agrippa,  charging  bad  faith  and  conduct,  and  insist- 
ing that  entrance  intO'  the  sacred  portals  should  be  for- 
bidden him.  That  he  was  one  of  the  bold  men  of  his 
day  is  shown  by  this  action.  (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XIX.  VII. 
4;  Derembourg,  "Essai  sur  I'histor  et  la  geographie 
de  la  Palestine,"  p.  207,  n.  i ;  Frankel,  "Monats- 
schrift,"  III.,  440.) 

Doras.  According  to  Josephus,  he  was  one  of  the 
most  influential  citizens  of  Jerusalem.  He  is  said  to 
have  been  a  man  of  cruel  character,  involved  with 
Governor  Felix  in  the  assassination  of  Jonathan,  the 
high  priest.  He  was  an  active  member  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  and  present  at  the  trial  of  Jesus.  (Jos.,  "Ant.," 
XX.  VII.  5.) 

John,  son  of  John.  Dorotheas,  son  of  Nathaniel, 
and  Tryphon,  son  of  Theudion,  with  Cornelius,  son  of 
Ceron,  are  mentioned  as  ambassadors  sent  by  the  Jews 
to  Emperor  Claudius,  A.  D.  44.  From  their  prom- 
inence it  is  considered  probable  that  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin. 

Jacob,  son  of  Jonathan,  was  also  a  member  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  although  it  is  doubtful  if  he  was  present 
at  the  last  trial. 

Narada,  son  of  Hacksab,  took  an  active  part  as  one 
of  the  judges,  and  it  was  he  who  proclaimed  to  the  full 
body   the    question   of  guilt   of   Jesus.      But   little   is 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  H5 

known  of  him,  outside  of  this.  He  is  reported  as  a 
Pharisee. 

Thus  more  than  one-half  of  the  seventy-one  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin  are  accounted  for.  With  the 
question  of  their  moral  characters  this  writer  has  noth- 
ing to  do.  One  may  assume  much  or  little,  according 
to  his  prejudices  or  bias.  That  the  three  chambers 
entered  into  session,  and  that  before  the  Grand  San- 
hedrin the  trial  of  Jesus  took  place  as  narrated,  is  not 
open  to  doubt.  Whether  or  no  there  was  a  prejudice 
existing  in  the  minds  of  its  members  is  of  little  conse- 
quence here,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  action  of  that 
council  was  reversed,  overthrown,  and  set  at  naught 
by  Pilate,  who  refused  to  acquiesce  in  the  judgment 
of  that  court,  and  to  sentence  the  prisoner  in  accord- 
ance with  the  demands  made  upon  him. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first  Apology  presented  to  the 
Emperor  Antonius  Pius  and  the  Senate  of  Rome,  A.  D. 
140,  in  mentioning  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  said  :  "And 
that  these  things  were  so  done,  you  may  know  from 
the  Acts  made  in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate."  Ter- 
tullin,  in  his  Apology,  A.  D.  200,  referring  to  the 
crucifixion  and  resurrection,  says :  "Of  all  these  things 
relating  to  Christ,  Pilate  sent  an  account  to  Tiberius, 
then  Emperor." 

These  were  writers  of  good  repute,  is  the  observa- 
tion of  Bishop  Pearson.     The  Apologies  referred  to 


ii6  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

were  for  the  Christian  rehgion,  and  proposed  to  the 
Emperor  and  Senate. 

It  is  known  at  the  time  of  the  first  Roman  Em- 
perors there  were  Acts  of  the  Senate,  of  the  city  or 
people  of  Rome.     (See  Sueton  Jul.  Caes.  xx.) 

It  is  but  likely  that  Pilate,  who  had  condemned 
Jesus  to  death  probably  as  against  his  conscience,  felt 
that  he  should  make  a  full  report  upon  the  proceedings. 
Pilate  was  removed  from  his  government  just  before 
the  Passover  A.  D.  36.  There  was  then  no  procurator 
or  other  person  holding  power  of  life  and  death  in  his 
hand  in  Judali  until  the  ascension  of  Herod  Agrippa, 
A.  D.  41.  It  has  been  claimed  by  many  that  the  re- 
moval of  Pilate  and  the  vacancy  in  the  governorship 
of  Judea  during  this  period  was  ordered  on  account  of 
the  condemnation  of  Jesus.  It  will  be  interesting  to 
read  in  connection  with  the  foregoing  "The  Credibil- 
ity of  the  Gospel  History,"  in  the  chapter  on  "Testi- 
monies of  Ancient  Heathens,"  Vol.  VI.,  page  605,  and 
following. 

The  Acts  of  Pontius  Pilate,  which  follow,  were 
clearly  an  official  production  composed  under  the  di- 
rect sanction  of  'the  Roman  Government.  It  is  prob- 
able they  were  accompanied  by  a  letter  to  the  Emperor, 
although  it  is  not  clear  that  this  was  similar  in  purport 
to  the  Acts  themselves.  ("Origin  of  the  Eour  Gos- 
;->cls,"  pp.   141-50.) 

TI1P  first  Greek  form  trnnslnlcd  shows  flint  the  Acts 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  117 

of  Pilate  were  written  in  Hebrew,  translated  by 
Ananias,  of  the  Propraetor's  bodyguard.  In  the  seven- 
teenth year  of  the  reign  of  Flavins  Theodosius.  The 
translation  here  follows : 

Chapter  i.  Having  called  a  council,  the  high  priests 
and  the  scribes  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  Semes  and 
Dathaes,  and  Gamaliel,  Judas,  Levi  and  Nepthalim, 
Alexander  and  Jairus,  and  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  came 
to  Pilate  accusing  Jesus  about  many  things,  saying : 
"We  know  this  man  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph  the  car- 
penter, born  of  Mary;  and  he  says  that  he  is  the  Son 
of  God,  and  a  king;  moreover,  profanes  the  Sabbath, 
and  wishes  to  do  away  with  the  law  of  our  fathers." 
Pilate  says :  "And  what  are  the  things  which  he  does, 
to  show  that  he  wishes  to  do  away  with  it?"  The 
Jews  say :  "We  have  a  law  not  to  cure  anyone  on  the 
Sabbath;  but  this  man  has  on  the  Sabbath  cured  the 
lame  and  the  crooked,  the  withered  and  blind  and  the 
paralytic,  the  dumb  and  the  demoniac,  by  evil  prac- 
tices." Pilate  says  unto  them  :  "What  evil  practices?" 
They  say  to  him :  "He  is  a  magician,  and  by  Beelze- 
bub, prince  of  the  demons,  he  casts  out  the  demons, 
and  all  are  subject  to  him."  Pilate  says  to  them : 
"This  is  not  casting  out  the  demons  by  an  unclean 
spirit,  but  by  the  god  Esculapius." 

The  Jews  say  to  Pilate :  "We  entreat  your  higlmess 
that  he  stand  at  the  tribunal  and  be  heard."  And 
Pilate,  having  called  them,  says :  "Tell  me  how  I,  be- 


ii8  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

ing  a  Procurator,  can  try  a  king?"  They  say  to  him: 
*'We  tlo  not  say  that  he  is  a  king,  but  he  himself  says 
that  he  is."  And  Pilate,  having  called  the  runner, 
says  to  him :  "Let  Jesus  be  brought  in  with  respect." 
And  the  runner,  going  out  and  recognizing  him, 
adored  him  and  took  his  cloak  into  his  hand  and 
spread  it  on  the  ground,  and  says  to  him :  "My  Lord, 
walk  on  this  and  come  in,  for  the  Procurator  calls 
thee."  And  the  Jews,  seeing  what  the  runner  had 
done,  cried  out  against  Pilate,  saying :  "Why  hast 
thou  ordered  him  to  come  by  a  runner,  and  not  by  a 
crier?  for  assuredly  the  runner,  when  he  saw  him, 
adored  him,  and  spread  his  doublet  on  the  ground  and 
made  him  walk  like  a  king." 

And  Pilate,  having  called  the  runner,  says  to^  him : 
"Why  hast  thou  done  this,  and  spread  out  thy  cloak 
upon  the  earth  and  made  Jesus  walk  upon  it?"  The 
runner  says  unto  him :  "My  Lord  Procurator,  when 
thou  didst  send  me  to  Jerusalem  to  Alexander,  I  saw 
Him  sitting  upon  an  ass,  and  the  sons  of  the  Hebrews 
held  branches  in  their  hands  and  shouted;  and  others 
spread  their  clothes  under  him  saying :  'Save  now, 
thou  who  art  in  the  highest ;  blessed  is  he  who  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  " 

The  Jews  cry  out  and  say  to  the  runner :  "The  sons 
of  the  Hebrews  shouted  in  Hebrew ;  whence,  then,  hast 
thou  the  Greek?"  The  runner  says  to  them  :  "I  asked 
one  of  the  Jews,  and  said,  'What  is  it  they  are  shout- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  119 

ing  in  Hebrew?'  and  he  interpreted  it  for  me."  Pilate 
says  to  them :  "And  what  did  they  shout  in  Hebrew?" 
The  Jews  say  to  him :  "Hosaima  membronte  baruch- 
amma  adonai."  Pilate  says  to  them :  "And  this  ho- 
sanna,  etc.,  how  is  it  interpreted?"  The  Jews  say  to 
him :  "Save  now  in  the  highest ;  blessed  is  he  that 
Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Pilate  says  to  them: 
"If  you  bear  witness  to  the  words  spoken  by  the  chil- 
dren, in  what  has  the  runner  done  wrong?"  And 
they  were  silent.  And  the  procurator  says  to  the 
runner :  "Go  out  and  bring  him  in  what  way  thou 
wilt."  And  the  runner,  going  out,  did  in  the  same 
manner  as  before,  and  says  to  Jesus :  "My  Lord,  come 
in;  the  Procurator  calleth  thee." 

And  Jesus,  going  in,  and  the  standard  bearers  hold- 
ing their  standards,  the  tops  of  the  standard  bent 
down,  and  adored  Jesus.  And  the  Jews,  seeing  the 
bearing  of  the  standards  how  they  were  bent  down 
and  adored  Jesus,  cried  out  vehemently  against  the 
standard  bearers.  And  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews :  "Do 
you  not  wonder  how  the  tops  of  the  standards  were 
bent  down  and  adored  Jesus?"  The  Jews  say  to 
Pilate :  "We  saw  how  the  standard  bearers  bent  them 
down  and  adored  him."  And  the  Procurator,  having 
called  the  standard  bearers,  says  to  them :  "Why  have 
you  done  this?"  They  say  to  Pilate:  "We  are  Greeks 
and  temple  slaves,  and  how  could  we  adore  him?  and 


I20  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

assuredly,  as  we  were  holding  them  up,  the  tops  bent 
down  of  their  accord  and  adored  him.'' 

Pilate  says  to  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  and  the 
elders  of  the  people:  "Do  you  choose  for  yourselves 
men  strong  and  powerful,  and  let  them  hold  up  the 
standards,  and  let  us  see  whether  they  will  bend  down 
with  them."  And  the  elders  of  the  Jews  picked  out 
twelve  men  powerful  and  strong,  and  made  them  hold 
up  the  standards  six  by  six ;  and  they  were  placed  in 
front  of  the  Procurator's  tribunal.  And  Pilate  says 
to  the  runner:  "Take  him  outside  of  the  Pretorium, 
and  bring  him  in  again  in  whatever  way  may  please 
thee."  And  Jesus  and  the  runner  went  out  of  the  Pre- 
torium. And  Pilate,  summoning  those  who  had  former- 
ly held  up  the  standards,  says  to  them :  "I  have  sworn 
by  the  health  of  Csesar,  that  if  the  standards  do  not 
bend  down  when  Jesus  comes  in,  I  will  cut  off  your 
heads."  And  the  Procurator  ordered  Jesus  to  come 
in  the  second  time.  And  the  runner  did  in  the  same 
manner  as  before,  and  made  many  entreaties  to  Jesus 
to  walk  on  his  cloak.  And  he  walked  on  it  and  went 
in.  And  as  he  went  in  the  standards  were  again  bent 
down  and  adored  Jesus. 

Chapter  2.  And  Pilate,  seeing  this,  was  afraid, 
and  sought  to  go  away  from  the  tribunal ;  and  while 
he  was  still  thinking  of  going  away,  his  wife  sent  to 
him  saying :  "Have  nothing  to  do  with  this  just  man, 
for  many  things  have  I  suffered  on  his  account  this 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  121 

night/'  And  Pilate,  summoning  the  Jews,  says  to 
them:  "You  know  that  my  wife  is  a  worshipper  of 
God,  and  prefers  to  adhere  to  the  Jewish  religion 
along  with  you."  They  say  to  him:  "Yes,  we  know." 
Pilate  says  to  them :  "Behold,  my  wife  has  sent  to  me, 
saying,  'Have  nothing  to  do  with  this  just  man,  for 
many  things  have  I  suffered  on  account  of  him  this 
night.'"  And  the  Jews  answering,  say  unto  Pilate: 
"Did  we  not  tell  thee  that  he  was  a  sorcerer?  Behold, 
he  has  sent  a  dream  to  thy  wife." 

And  Pilate,  having  summoned  Jesus,  says  to  him : 
"What  do  these  witness  against  thee?  Sayest  thou 
nothing?"  And  Jesus  said:  "Unless  they  had  the 
power,  they  would  say  nothing ;  for  every  one  has  the 
power  of  his  own  mouth  to  speak  both  good  and  evil. 
They  shall  see  to  it." 

And  the  elders  of  the  Jews  answered,  and  said  to 
Jesus:  "What  shall  w^e  see?  First,  concerning  the 
circumstances  of  your  birth ;  secondly,  that  thy  birth 
in  Bethlehem  was  the  cause  of  the  murder  of  the  in- 
fants; thirdly,  that  thy  father  Joseph  and  thy  mother 
Mary  fled  into  Egypt  because  they  had  no  confidence 
in  the  people." 

Some  of  the  bystanders,  pious  men  of  the  Jews,  say : 
"We  deny  the  accusation  and  we  know  that  Joseph 
espoused  Mary."  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews :  "Who 
sayest  these  things?  This  story  of  yours  is  not  true, 
because  they   were  betrothed,   as   also  these   fellow^- 


122  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

countrymen  of  yours  agree."  Annas  and  Caiaphas  say 
to  Pilate:  "All  the  multitude  of  us  cry  out  against 
him,  and  are  not  believed ;  these  are  proselytes  and  his 
disciples.*'  And  Pilate,  calling  Annas  and  Caiaphas, 
asked:  "What  are  proselytes?"  They  say  to  him: 
"They  are  by  birth  children  of  the  Greeks,  and  have 
now  become  Jews."  And  those  that  defended  Jesus, 
viz.,  Lazarus,  Asterius,  Antonius,  James,  Amnes. 
Zeras,  Samuel,  Isaac,  Phineas,  Crispus,  Agrippas  and 
Judas,  say :  "We  are  not  proselytes,  but  are  children 
of  the  Jews,  and  speak  the  truth ;  for  we  were  present 
at  the  betrothal  of  Joseph  and  Mary." 

And  Pilate,  calling  these  twelve  men,  say  to 
them :  "I  adjure  you,  by  the  health  of  Caesar,  to  tell 
me  whether  it  be  true  that  you  say."  They  say  to 
Pilate :  "We  have  a  law  against  taking  oaths,  and  be- 
cause it  is  a  sin;  but  they  will  swear  by  the  health  of 
Caesar  that  it  is  not  as  we  have  said,  and  we  are  liable 
to  death."  Pilate  says  to  Annas  and  Caiaphas :  "Have 
you  nothing  to  answer  to  this?"  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
say  to  Pilate :  "These  twelve  are  believed,  nevertheless 
all  the  multitude  of  us  cry  out  that  he  is  a  sorcerer; 
and  that  he  says  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  and  a  King, 
and  we  are  not  believed." 

And  Pilate  orders  all  the  multitude  to  go  out,  ex- 
cept the  twelve  men,  and  he  ordered  Jesus  to  be  sep- 
arated from  them.     And  Pilate  says  to  them :  "For 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  123 

what  reason  do  they  wish  to  put  him  to  death?"  They 
say  to  him :  "They  are  angry  because  he  cures  on  the 
Sabbath."  Pilate  says :  "For  a  good  work  do  they 
wish  to  put  him  to  death?"    They  say  to  him:  "Yes." 

Chapter  3.  And  Pilate,  filled  with  rage,  went  out- 
side of  the  Pretorium  and  said  to  the  multitude:  "J. 
take  the  sun  to  witness  that  I  find  no  fault  in  this 
man."  The  Jews  answered  and  said  to  the  Procura- 
tor :  "Unless  this  man  were  an  evil-doer,  we  should 
not  have  delivered  him  to  thee."  And  Pilate  said : 
"Do  you  take  him  and  judge  him  according  to  your 
law."  The  Jews  said  to  Pilate:  "It  is  not  lawful  for 
us  to  put  anyone  to  death."  Pilate  said :  "Has  God 
said  that  you  are  not  to  put  to  death,  but  that  I  am  ?" 

And  Pilate  went  again  into  the  Pretorium  and  spoke 
to  Jesus  privately,  and  said  to  him :  "Art  thou  the  king 
of  the  Jews?"  Jesus  answered  Pilate:  "Dost  thou  say 
this  of  thyself,  or  have  others  said  it  to  thee  of  me?" 
Pilate  answered  Jesus:  "Am  I  also  a  Jew?  Thy  na- 
tion and  the  chief  priests  have  given  thee  up  to  me. 
What  hast  thou  done?"  Jesus  answered:  "My  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world;  for  if  my  kingdom  were  of 
this  world,  my  servants  would  fight  in  order  that  I 
should  not  be  given  up  to  the  Jews;  but  now^  my  king- 
dom is  not  from  thence."  Pilate  said  to  him :  "Art 
thou,  then,  a  King?"  Jesus  answered  him:  "Thou 
sayest  that  I  am  King.  Because  for  this  have  I  been 
born,  and  I  have  come,  in  order  that  everyone  who  is 


1^4  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

of  the  truth  might  hear  my  voice."  Pilate  says  to 
him:  "What  is  truth?"  Jesus  says  to  him:  "Truth  is 
from  Heaven."  Pilate  says :  "Is  truth  not  upon 
earth?"  Jesus  says  to  Pilate:  "Thou  seest  how  those 
who  speak  the  truth  are  judged  by  those  that  have  the 
power  upon  earth." 

Chapter  4.  And  leaving  Jesus  within  the  Preto- 
rium,  Pilate  went  out  to  the  Jews  and  said  to  them  :  "I 
find  no  fault  in  him."  The  Jews  say  to  him :  "He  said, 
T  can  destroy  this  Temple,  and  in  three  days  build  it.'  " 
Pilate  says:  "What  Temple?"  The  Jews  say:  "The 
one  Solomon  built  in  forty-six  years,  and  this  man 
speaks  of  pulling  it  down  and  building  it  up  in  three 
days."  Pilate  says  to  them:  "I  am  innocent  of  the 
blood  of  this  just  man.  See  you  to  it."  The  Jews 
say :  "His  blood  be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children." 

And  Pilate,  having  summoned  the  elders  and  priests 
and  Levites,  said  to  them  privately :  "Do  not  act  thus, 
because  no  charge  that  you  bring  against  him  is 
worthy  of  death ;  for  your  charge  is  about  curing  and 
Sabbath  profanation."  The  elders  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  say!  "If  anyone  speak  evil  against  Csesar, 
is  he  worthy  of  death  or  not?"  Pilate  says:  "He  is 
worthy  of  death."  The  Jews  say  to  Pilate :  "If  any- 
one speak  evil  against  Caesar,  he  is  worthy  of  death ; 
but  this  man  has  spoken  evil  against  God." 

And  the  Procurator  ordered  the  Jews  to  go  outside 
of  the  Pretorium ;  and,  summoning  Tesus,  he  savs  to 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  1^5 

him :  "What  shall  I  do  to  thee?"  Jesus  says  to  Pilate : 
"As  it  has  been  given  to  thee."  Pilate  says :  "How 
given?"  Jesus  says:  "Moses  and  the  prophets  have 
proclaimed  beforehand  of  my  death  and  resurrection." 
And  the  Jews,  noticing  this  and  hearing  it,  say  to 
Pilate :  "What  more  wilt  thou  hear  of  this  blas- 
phemy?" Pilate  says  to  the  Jews:  "If  these  words 
be  blasphemous,  do  you  take  him  for  this  blasphemy, 
and  lead  him  away  to  your  synagogue  and  judge  him 
according  to  your  law."  The  Jews  say  to  Pilate: 
"Our  law  bears  that  a  man  who  wrongs  his  fellow- 
men  is  worthy  to  receive  forty  save  one;  but  he  that 
blasphemeth  God  is  to  be  stoned  with  stones." 

Pilate  says  to  them :  "Do  you  take  him  and  punish 
him  in  whatever  way  you  please."  The  Jews  say  ta 
Pilate:  "We  wish  that  he  be  crucified."  Pilate  says: 
"He  is  not  deserving  of  crucifixion." 

And  the  Procurator,  looking  round  upon  the  crowds 
of  the  Jews  standing  by,  sees  many  of  the  Jews  weep- 
ing, and  says :  "All  the  multitude  do  not  wish  him  to 
die."  The  elders  of  the  Jews  say :  "For  this  reason 
all  the  multitude  of  us  have  come,  that  he  should  die." 
Pilate  says  to  the  Jews:  "Why  should  he  die?"  The 
Jews  say :  "Because  he  called  himself  the  Son  of  God 
and  King." 

Chapter  5.  And  one  Nicodemus,  a  Jew,  stood  be- 
fore the  Procurator  and  said :  "I  beseech  your  honor 
let  me  say  a   few  words."     Pilate  says:   "Say  on." 


126  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

Nicodemus  says :  "I  said  to  the  elders  and  the  priests 
and  Levites,  and  to  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews  in 
the  S3magogue,  what  do  you  seek  to  do  with  this  man  ? 
This  man  does  miracles  and  strange  things,  which  no 
one  has  done  or  will  do.  Let  him  gO'  and  do  not  wish 
any  evil  against  him.  If  the  miracles  which  he  does 
are  of  God,  they  will  stand;  but  if  of  man,  they  will 
come  to  nothing.  For  assuredly  Moses,  being  sent  by 
God  into  Egypt,  did  many  miracles,  which  the  Lord 
commanded  him  to  do  before  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt. 
And  there  were  Jannes  and  Jambres,  servants  oi 
Pharaoh,  and  they  also  did  not  a  few  of  the  miracles 
which  Moses  did;  and  the  Egyptian  took  them  to  be 
Gods — this  Jannes  and  Jambres.  But,  since  the  mir- 
acles which  they  did  were  not  of  God,  both  they  and 
those  who  believed  in  them  were  destroyed.  And  now 
release  this  man,  for  he  is  not  deserving  of  death." 

The  Jews  say  to  Nicodemus :  "Thou  hast  become 
his  disciple,  and  therefore  thou  defendest  him."  Nico- 
demus says  to  them :  "Perhaps,  too,  the  Procurator  has 
become  his  disciple,  because  he  defends  him.  Has  the 
Emperor  not  appointed  him  to  this  place  of  dignity?" 
And  the  Jews  were  vehemently  enraged  and  gnashed 
their  teeth  against  Nicodemus.  Pilate  says  to  them : 
"Why  do  you  gnash  your  teeth  against  him  when  you 
hear  the  truth?"  The  Jews  say  to  Nicodemus  :  "Mayst 
thou  receive  his  truth  and  his  portion."     Nicodemus 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  127 

says:  "Amen!  Amen!  may  I  receive  it,  as  you  have 
said." 

Chapter  6.  One  of  the  Jews,  stepping  up,  asked 
leave  of  the  Procurator  to  say  a  word.  The  Procura- 
tor says:  "If  thou  wishest  to  say  anything,  say  on." 
And  the  Jew  said :  "Thirty-eight  years  I  lay  in  my 
bed  in  great  agony.  And  when  Jesus  came,  many 
demoniacs  and  many  lying  ill  of  various  diseases  v^^ere 
cured  by  him.  And  when  Jesus  saw  me  he  had  com- 
passion on  me,  and  said  to  me :  'Take  up  thy  couch 
and  walk.'  And  I  took  up  my  couch  and  walked." 
The  Jews  say  to  Pilate :  "Ask  him  on  what  day  it  was 
when  he  was  cured."  He  that  had  been  cured  says : 
"On  a  Sabbath."  The  Jews  say :  "Is  not  this  the  very 
thing  we  said,  that  on  a  Sabbath  he  cures  and  casts  out 
demons?" 

And  another  Jew  stepped  up  and  said :  "I  was  born 
blind;  I  heard  sounds,  but  saw  not  a  face.  And  as 
Jesus  passed  by  I  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice,  'Pity 
me,  O  son  of  David.'  And  he  pitied  me  and  put  his 
hands  upon  my  eyes,  and  I  instantly  received  m}' 
sight."  And  another  Jew  stepped  up  and  said:  "I 
w^as  crooked  and  he  straightened  me  with  a  word." 
And  another  said :  "I  was  a  leper,  and  he  cured  me 
with  a  word." 

Chapter  7.  And  a  woman  cried  out  from  a  distance 
and  said :  "I  had  an  issue  of  blood,  and  I  touched  the 
hem  of  his  garment,  and  the  issue  of  blood,  which  I 


128  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

had  had  for  twelve  years,  was  stopped."  The  Jews 
say :  "We  have  a  law  that  a  woman's  evidence  is  not 
received/' 

Chapter  8.  And  others,  a  mnltitude  both  of  men 
and  women,  cried  out,  saying :  "This  man  is  a  prophet, 
and  the  demons  are  subject  to  him."  Said  Pilate : 
"Why,  then,  were  not  your  teachers  also  subject  to 
him?"  They  say  to  Pilate:  "We  do  not  know."  And 
another  said :  "He  raised  Lazarus  from  the  tomb  afier 
he  had  been  dead  four  days."  And  the  Procurator 
trembled,  and  said  to  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews : 
"Why  do  you  wish  to  pour  out  innocent  blood?" 

Chapter  9.  And,  having  summoned  Nicodemus  and 
twelve  men  that  knew  of  the  manner  of  his  birth,  he 
says  to  them :  "What  shall  I  do,  because  there  is  an 
insurrection  among  the  people?"  They  say  to  him: 
"We  know  not ;  let  them  see  to  it."  Again  Pilate, 
having  summoned  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews,  says : 
"You  know  that  it  is  customary,  at  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  to  release  one  prisoner  to  you.  I  have 
one  condemned  prisoner  in  the  prison,  a  murderer 
named  Bar  Abbas,  and  this  man  standing  in  your  pres- 
ence, Jesus,  in  whom  I  find  no  fault.  Which  of  them 
do  you  wish  me  to  release  to  you?"  And  they  cry 
out :  "Bar  Abbas."  Pilate  says  :  "What,  then,  shall  we 
do  to  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ?"  The  Jews  say: 
"T.et  him  be  crucified.''  And  others  said:  "Thou  art 
no  friciid  of  Crcsar's  if  thou  release  this  man,  because 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  129 

he  called  himself  the  Son  of  God  and  King.  You  wish 
this  man,  then,  to  be  a  King,  and  not  Caesar?" 

And  Pilate,  in  a  rage,  says  to  the  Jews :  "Always 
has  your  nation  been  rebellious,  and  you  always  speak 
against  your  benefactors."  The  Jews  say:  "What 
benefactors  ?"  He  says  to  them :  "Your  God  led  you 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  from  bitter  slavery,  and 
brought  you  safe  through  the  sea  as  through  dry  land, 
and  in  the  desert  fed  you  with  manna  and  gave  you 
quails,  and  quenched  your  thirst  with  water  from  a 
rock,  and  gave  you  law ;  and  in  all  these  things  have 
you  provoked  your  God  in  anger,  and  sought  a  molten 
calf.  And  you  exasperated  your  God,  and  he  sought 
to  slay  you.  And  Moses  prayed  for  you,  and  you 
were  not  put  to  death.  And  now  you  charge  me  with 
hating  the  Emperor." 

And  rising  up  from  the  tribunal,  he  sought  to  go 
out.  And  the  Jews  cry  out  and  say :  "We  know  that 
Caesar  is  King,  and  not  Jesus.  For  assuredly  the  magi 
brought  gifts  to  him  as  to  a  king.  And  when  Herod 
heard  from  the  magi  that  a  King  had  been  born,  he 
sought  to  slay  him ;  and  his  father,  Joseph,  knowirig 
this,  took  him  and  his  mother,  and  they  fled  into 
Egypt.  And  Herod,  hearing  of  it,  destroyed  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Hebrews  that  had  been  born  in  Bethle- 
hem." 

And  when  Pilate  heard  these  words  he  was  afraid ; 
and,  ordering  the  crowd  to  keep  silence,  because  they 


13©  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

were  crying  out,  he  says  to  them :  "So  this  is  he  whom 
Herod  sought  ?"  The  Jews  say :  "Yes,  it  is  he."  iVnd, 
taking  water,  Pilate  washed  his  hands  in  the  face  of 
the  sun,  saying :  "I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this 
just  man.  See  you  to  it."  Again  the  Jews  cry  out ; 
"His  blood  be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children." 

Then  Pilate  ordered  the  curtain  of  the  tribunal 
where  he  was  sitting  to  be  drawn,  and  says  to  Jesus : 
"Thy  nation  has  charged  thee  with  being  a  King.  On 
this  account,  I  sentence  thee  first  to  be  scourged,  ac- 
cording to  the  enactment  of  venerable  kings,  and  then 
to  be  fastened  on  the  Cross  in  the  garden  where  thou 
was  seized.  And  let  Dysmas  and  Gestas,  the  two 
malefactors,  be  crucified  with  thee." 

Chapter  lo.  And  Jesus  went  forth  out  of  the  Pre- 
torium,  and  the  malefactors  with  him.  And  when 
they  came  to  the  place,  they  stripped  him  of  his  clothes 
and  girded  him  with  a  towel,  and  put  a  crown  of 
thorns  on  him  round  his  head.  And  they  crucified 
him ;  and  at  the  same  time,  also,  they  hung  up  the  two 
malefactors  along  with  him.  And  Jesus  said :  "Father, 
forgive  them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do."  And 
the  soldiers  parted  his  clothes  among  them ;  and  the 
people  stood  looking  at  him.  And  the  chief  priests 
and  the  rulers  with  them  mocked  him,  saying:  "He 
saved  others;  let  him  save  himself.  If  he  be  the  Son 
of  God,  let  him  come  down  from  the  Cross."  And 
the  soldiers  made  sport  of  him,  coming  near  and  offer- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  131 

ing  him  vinegar  mixed  with  gall,  and  said  :  "Thou 
art  the  king  of  the  Jews;  save  thyself/' 

And  Pilate,  after  the  sentence,  ordered  the  charge 
against  him  to  be  inscribed  as  a  superscription  in 
Greek  and  Latin  and  Hebrew,  according  to  what  the 
Jews  had  said :  He  is  King  of  the  Jews. 

And  one  of  the  malefactors  hanging  up  spoke  to 
him,  saying :  "If  thou  be  the  Christ,  save  thyself  and 
us."  And  Dysmas  answering  reproved  him,  saying: 
"Dost  thou  not  fear  God,  because  thou  art  in  the  same 
condemnation?  And  we,  indeed,  justly,  for  we  re- 
ceive the  fit  due  of  evil."  And  he  said  to  Jesus :  "Re- 
member me,  Lord,  in  thy  kingdom."  And  Jesus  said : 
"Amen.  Amen,  I  say  to  thee ;  to-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
me  in  Paradise." 

And  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour,  and  there  was 
darkness  over  the  earth  until  the  ninth  hour,  the  sun 
being  darkened ;  and  the  curtain  of  the  Temple  was 
split  in  the  middle.  And,  crying  out  with  a  loud 
voice,  Jesus  said :  "Father,  baddach  ephkid  rticl," 
which  is,  interpreted,  "Lito  thy  hands  I  commit  my 
spirit."  And,  having  said  this,  he  gave  up  the  ghost. 
And  the  centurion,  seeing  what  had  happened,  glori- 
fied God  and  said :  "This  was  a  just  man."  And  all 
the  crowds  that  were  present  at  this  spectacle,  when 
they  saw  what  had  happened,  beat  their  breasts  and 
went  away. 

And  the  centurion  reported  what  had  happened  to 


132  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

the  Procurator.  And  when  the  Procurator  and  his 
wife  heard  it  they  were  exceedingly  grieved,  and 
neither  ate  nor  drank  that  day.  And  Pilate  sent  for 
the  Jews  and  said  to  them :  "Have  you  seen  what  has 
happened?"  And  they  say :  "There  has  been  an  eclipse 
of  the  sun  in  the  usual  way." 

And  his  acquaintances  were  standing  at  a  distance 
and  the  women  who  came  with  him  from  Galilee,  see- 
ing these  things.  And  a  man  named  Joseph,  a  coun- 
cillor from  the  city  of  Arimathea,  who  also  waited  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  went  to  Pilate  and  begged  the 
body  of  Jesus.  And  he  took  it  down  and  wrapped  it 
in  a  clean  linen,  and  placed  it  in  a  tomb  hewn  out  of 
the  rock,  in  which  no  one  had  ever  lain. 

Chapter  12.  And  the  Jews,  hearing  that  Joseph 
had  begged  the  body  of  Jesus,  sought  him,  and  the 
twelve  and  Nicodemus  and  many  others  who  had 
stepped  up  before  Pilate  and  declared  his  good  works. 
And  of  all  these  that  were  hid  Nicodemus  alone  was 
seen  by  them,  because  he  was  the  ruler  of  the  Jews. 
And  Nicodemus  says  to  them:  "How  have  you  come 
into  this  synagogue?"  The  Jews  say  to  him:  "How 
hast  thou  come  into  the  synagogue,  for  thou  art  a 
confederate  of  his,  and  his  portion  is  with  thee  in  the 
world  to  come."  Nicodemus  says:  "Amen!  Amen!" 
And  likewise  Joseph  also  stepped  out  and  said  to 
them:  "Why  are  you  angry  against  me  because  I 
begged  the  body  of  Jesus?     Behold,  T  have  put  him 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  133 

in  my  new  tomb,  wrapping  him  in  a  clean  linen ;  and 
I  have  rolled  a  stone  to  the  door  of  the  tomb.  And 
you  have  acted  not  well  against  the  just  man,  because 
you  have  not  repented  of  crucifying  him,  but  also  have 
pierced  him  with  a  spear."  And  the  Jews  seized 
Joseph  and  ordered  him  to  be  secured  until  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  and  said  to  him:  "Know  that  the 
time  does  not  allow  us  to  do  anything  against  thee, 
because  the  Sabbath  is  dawning;  and  know  that  thou 
shalt  not  be  deemed  worthy  of  burial,  but  we  shall 
give  thy  flesh  to  the  birds  of  the  air."  Joseph  says  to 
them :  "These  are  the  words  of  the  arrogant  Goliath, 
who'  reproached  the  living  God  and  holy  David.  For 
God  has  said  by  the  prophet,  'Vengeance  is  mine,  and 
I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord.'  And  now  that  he  is  un- 
circumcised  in  flesh,  but  circumcised  in  heart,  has 
taken  water  and  washed  his  hands  in  the  face  of  the 
sun,  saying,  'I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just 
man ;  see  ye  to  it.'  And  you  answered  and  said  to 
Pilate :  'His  blood  be  upon  us  and  uix)n  our  children.' 
And  now  I  am  afraid,  lest  the  wrath  of  God  come  upon 
you  and  upon  your  children,  as  you  have  said."  And 
the  Jews,  hearing  these  words,  were  embittered  in 
their  souls,  and  seized  Joseph  and  locked  him  into  a 
room  where  there  was  no  window;  and  guards  were 
stationed  at  the  door,  and  they  sealed  the  door  where 
Joseph  was  locked  in. 

And  on  one  Sabbath  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue 


134  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  made  a  decree  that  all 
should  be  found  in  the  synagogue  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  And,  rising  up  early,  all  the  multitude  in 
the  synagogue  coiisulted  by  what  death  they  should 
slay  him.  And  when  the  Sanhedrin  was  sitting,  they 
ordered  him  to  be  brought  with  much  indignity.  And, 
liaving  opened  the  door,  they  found  him  not.  And  all 
the  people  were  surprised  and  struck  with  dismay,  be- 
cause they  found  the  seals  unbroken,  and  because 
Caiaphas  had  the  key. 

Chapter  13.  And  while  they  were  still  sitting  in  the 
synagogue  and  wondering  about  Joseph,  there  came 
some  of  the  guard  whom  the  Jews  had  begged  of 
Pilate  to  guard  the  tomb  of  Jesus,  that  his  disciples 
might  not  come  and  steal  him.  And  they  reported  to 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  Lev- 
ites, what  had  happened ;  how  there  had  been  an  earth- 
quake; "and  we  saw  an  angel  coming  down  from 
heaven,  and  he  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  mouth 
of  the  tomb  and  sat  upon  it;  and  he  shone  like  snow 
and  like  lightning.  And  we  were  very  much  afraid, 
and  lay  like  dead  men ;  and  we  heard  the  voice  of  the 
angel,  saying  to  the  women  who  remained  beside  the 
tomb :  Be  not  afraid,  for  I  know  that  you  seek  Jesus, 
who  was  crucified.  He  is  not  here.  He  has  risen,  as 
he  said.  Come,  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay;  and 
go  quickly  and  tell  his  disciples  that  he  is  risen  from 
the  dead,  and  is  in  Galilee." 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  i35 

The  Jews  say:  "To  what  women  did  he  speak?" 
The  men  of  the  guard  say :  "We  know  not  who  they 
were."  The  Jews  say:  "At  what  time  was  this?"  The 
men  of  the  guard  say  :  "At  midnight."  The  Jews  say  : 
"And  wherefore  did  you  not  lay  hold  of  them?"  The 
men  of  the  guard  say :  "We  were  like  dead  men  from 
fear,  not  expecting  to  see  the  light  of  day,  and  how 
could  we  lay  hold  of  them?"  The  Jews  say:  "As  the 
Lord  liveth,  we  do'  not  believe  you."  The  men  of  the 
guard  say  to  the  Jews :  "You  have  seen  soi  great  mir- 
acles in  the  case  of  this  man,  and  have  not  believed; 
and  how  can  you  believe  us  ?  And  assuredly  you  have 
done  well  to  swear  that  the  Lord  liveth,  for  indeed  he 
does  live."  Again  the  men  of  the  guard  say:  "We 
have  heard  that  you  have  locked  up  the  man  that 
begged  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  put  a  seal  on  the  door ; 
and  that  you  have  opened  it  and  not  found  him.  Do 
you,  then,  give  us  the  man  whom  you  were  g'uarding, 
and  we  shall  give  you  Jesus."  The  Jews  say:  "Joseph 
has  gone  away  to  his  own  city."  The  men  of  the 
guard  say  to  the  Jews :  "And  Jesus  has  risen,  as  we 
heard  from  the  angel,  and  is  in  Galilee." 

And  when  the  Jews  heard  these  words  they  were 
very  much  afraid,  and  said :  "We  must  take  care  lest 
this  story  be  heard,  and  all  incline  to  Jesus."  And  the 
Jews  called  a  council,  and  paid  down  a  considerable 
money  and  gave  it  to  the  soldiers,  saying :  "Say,  while 
he  slept,  his  disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  him; 


136  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

and  if  this  come  to  the  ears  of  the  Procurator  we  shall 
persuade  him  and  keep  you  out  of  trouble."  And  they 
took  it,  and  said  as  they  had  been  instructed. 

Chapter  14.  And  Phinees,  a  priest,  and  Adas,  a 
teacher,  and  Haggai,  a  Levite,  came  down  from  Gali- 
lee to  Jerusalem,  and  said  to  the  rulers  of  the  syna- 
gogue, and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  :  "We  saw  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  sitting  on  the  mountain  called 
Mamilcli ;  and  he  said  to  his  disciples :  Go  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  to  every  creature;  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  condemned.  And  these  signs  shall  attend 
those  who  have  believed ;  in  my  name  they  shall  cast 
out  demons,  speak  new  tongues,  take  up  serpents ;  and 
if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  by  no  means 
hurt  them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they 
shall  be  well."  And  while  Jesus  was  speaking  to  his 
disciples  we  saw  him  taken  up  into  Heaven. 

The  elders  and  priests  and  Levites  say :  "Give  glory 
to  the  God  of  Israel,  and  confess  to  him  whether  you 
have  heard  and, seen  those  things,  of  which  you  have 
given  us  an  account."  And  those  who  had  given  the 
account  said :  "As  the  Lord  liveth,  the  God  of  our 
fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  we  heard  these 
things  and  saw  him  taken  up  into  heaven."  The  elders 
and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  say  to  them :  "Have 
you  come  to  give  us  this  announcement,  or  to  of¥er 
prayer  to  God?"     And  they  say:  "To  offer  prayer  to 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  137 

God."  The  elders  and  the  chief  priests  and  the  Levites 
say  to  them :  "If  you  have  come  to  offer  prayer  to 
God,  why,  then,  have  you  told  these  idle  tales  in  the 
presence  of  all  the  people?"  Says  Phinees,  the  priest, 
and  Adas,  the  teacher,  and  Haggai,  the  Levite,  to  the 
rulers  of  the  synagogues,  and  the  priests  and  the 
Levites :  "If  what  we  have  said  and  seen  be  sinful, 
behold,  we  are  before  you ;  do  to  us  as  seems  good  in 
your  eyes."  And  they  took  the  law  and  made  them 
swear  upon  it  not  to  give  any  more  an  account  of 
these  matters  to  anyone.  And  they  gave  them  to  eat 
and  drink  and  sent  them  out  of  the  city,  having  given 
them  also  money,  and  the  three  men  with  them ;  and 
they  sent  them  away  to  Galilee. 

And  these  men,  having  gone  into  Galilee,  the  chief 
priests  and  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  elders 
came  together  in  the  synagogue  and  locked  the  door, 
and  lamented  with  great  lamentation,  saying :  "Is  this 
a  miracle  that  has  happened  in  Israel?"  And  Annas 
and  Caiaphas  said:  "Why  are  you  so  much  moved? 
Why  do  you  weep?  Do  you  not  know  that  his  dis- 
ciples have  given  a  sum  of  gold  to  the  guards  of  the 
tomb,  and  have  instructed  them  to  say  that  an  angel 
came  down  and  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  door 
of  the  tomb?"  And  the  priests  and  elders  said:  "Be 
it  that  his  disciples  have  stolen  his  body ;  how  is  it  that 
the  life  has  come  into  his  body,  and  that  he  is  going 
about  in  Galilee?"     And  they,  being  unable  to  give  an 


13S  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

answer  to  these  things,  said,  after  great  hesitation : 
"It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  believe  the  uncircumcised." 
Chapter  15.  And  Nicodemus  stood  up,  and  stood 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  saying:  "You  say  well;  you 
are  not  ignorant,  you  people  of  the  Lord,  of  these  men 
that  come  down  from  Galilee,  that  they  fear  God,  and 
are  men  of  substance,  haters  of  covetousness,  men  of 
peace;  and  they  have  declared  with  an  oath,  'We  saw 
Jesus  upon  the  mountain  Mamilch  with  his  disciples, 
and  he  taught  what  we  heard  from  him,  and  w^e  saw 
him  taken  up  into  heaven.'  And  no  one  asked  them 
in  what  form  he  went  up.  For  assuredly,  as  the  book 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  taught  us,  Helias  also  was 
taken  up  into  heaven,  and  Elissaeus  cried  out  with  a 
loud  voice,  and  Helias  threw  his  sheepskin  upon 
Elissaeus,  and  Elissaeus  threw  his  sheepskin  upon  the 
Jordan,  and  crossed  and  came  into  Jericho.  And  the 
children  of  the  propliets  met  him  and  said,  O  Elis- 
saeus, where  is  thy  master  Helias?  And  he  said,  He 
has  been  taken  up  into  heaven.  And  they  said  to 
Elissaeus,  Has  not  a  spirit  seized  him,  and  thrown 
him  upon  one  of  the  mountains  ?  And  they  persuaded 
Elissaeus,  and  he  went  away  with  them.  And  they 
sought  him  three  days,  and  did  not  find  him ;  and  they 
knew  that  he  had  been  taken  up.  And  now  listen  to 
me,  and  let  us  send  into  every  district  of  Israel  and 
see,  lest,  perchance,  Christ  has  been  taken  up  by  a 
spirit  and  thrown  upon  one  of  the  mountains."     And 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  139 

this  proposal  pleased  all.  And  they  sent  into  every 
district  of  Israel  and  sought  Jesus,  and  did  not  find 
him ;  but  they  found  Joseph  in  Arimathea,  and  no  one 
dare  to  lay  hands  on  him. 

And  they  reported  to  the  elders  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites :  We  have  gone  round  to  every  district  of 
Israel,  and  have  not  found  Jesus;  but  Joseph  we  have 
found  in  Arimathea.  And  hearing  about  Joseph  they 
were  glad  and  gave  glory  to  the  God  of  Israel.  And 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  the 
Levites,  having  held  a  council  as  to  the  matter  in 
which  they  should  meet  with  Joseph,  took  a  piece  of 
paper  and  wrote  as  follows : 

"Peace  to  thee !  We  know  that  we  have  sinned 
against  God,  and  against  thee ;  and  we  have  prayed  to 
the  God  of  Israel  that  thou  shouldst  deign  to  come  to 
thy  fathers  and  to  thy  children,  because  we  all  have 
been  grieved.  For,  having  opened  the  door,  we  did 
not  find  thee.  And  we  know  that  we  have  counseled 
evil  counsel  against  thee  but  the  Lord  has  defended 
thee,  and  the  Lord  himself  has  scattered  to  the  winds 
our  counsel  against  thee,  O  honorable  father  Joseph." 

And  they  chose  from  all  Israel  seven  men,  friends 
of  Joseph,  whom,  also,  Joseph  himself  was  acquainted 
with;  and  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests 
and  the  Levites  say  to  them:  "Take  notice;  if,  after 
receiving  our  letter  he  read  it,  know  that  he  will  come 
with  you  to  us.     But  if  he  do  not  read  it,  know  that 


I40  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

he  is  ill-disposed  towards  us.  And,  having  saluted 
him  in  peace,  return  to  us."  And  having  blest  the 
men,  they  dismissed  them.  And  the  men  came  to 
Joseph  and  did  reverence  to  him,  and  said  to  him : 
"Peace  to  thee!"  And  he  said :  "Peace  tO'  you  and  all 
the  people  of  Israel !"  And  they  gave  him  the  roll  of 
the  letter.  And  Joseph,  having  received  it,  read  the 
letter  and  rolled  it  up,  and  blessed  God  and  said : 
"Blessed  be  the  Lord  God,  who  has  delivered  Israel, 
that  they  should  not  shed  innocent  blood ;  and  blessed 
be  the  Lord,  who  sent  out  his  angel  and  covered  me 
under  his  wings."  And  he  set  a  table  for  them ;  and 
they  ate  and  drank  and  slept  there. 

And  they  rose  up  early  and  prayed.  And  Joseph 
saddled  his  ass  and  set  out  with  the  men;  and  they 
came  to  the  holy  city  of  Jerusalem.  And  all  the  people 
met  Joseph  and  cried  out:  "Peace  to  thee  in  thy  com- 
ing in !"  And  he  said  to  all  the  people :  "Peace  to  you," 
and  he  kissed  them.  And  the  people  prayed  with 
Joseph,  and  they  were  astonished  at  the  sight  of  him. 
And  Nicodemus  received  him  into  his  house  and  made 
a  great  feast,  and  called  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  the 
elders  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  tO'  his  house. 
And  they  rejoiced,  eating  and  drinking  with  Joseph: 
and,  after  singing  hymns,  each  proceeded  to  his  own 
house.  But  Joseph  remained  in  the  house  of  Nico- 
demus. 

And  on  the  following  day,  which  was  the  prepara- 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS        '  141 

tion,  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  and  the  priests  and 
tlie  Levites  went  early  to  the  house  of  Nicodemus; 
and  Nicodemus  met  them  and  said :  "Peace  to  thee  and 
to  Joseph,  and  to  all  thy  house  and  to  all  the  house  of 
Joseph!"  And  he  brought  them  into  his  house.  And 
all  the  Sanhedrin  sat  down,  and  Joseph  sat  down  be- 
tween Annas  and  Caiaphas ;  and  no  one  dared  to  say 
a  word  to  him.  And  Joseph  said :  "Why  have  you 
called  me?"  And  they  signaled  to  Nicodemus  to 
speak  to  Joseph.  And  Nicodemus,  opening  his  mouth, 
said  to  Joseph :  "Father,  thou  knowest  that  the  honor- 
able teachers  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  seek  to 
learn  a  word  from  thee."  And  Joseph  said :  "Ask." 
And  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  having  taken  the  law,  made 
Joseph  swear,  saying:  "Give  glory  to  the  God  of 
Israel,  and  give  him  confession;  for  Achar,  being 
made  to  swear  by  the  prophet  Jesus,  did  not  forswear 
himself,  but  declared  unto  him  all,  and  did  not  hide  a 
word  from  him.  Do  thou  also,  accordingly,  not  hide 
from  us  to  the  extent  of  a  word."  And  Joseph  said : 
"I  shall  not  hide  from  you  one  word."  And  they  said 
to  him :  "With  grief  were  we  grieved  because  thou 
didst  beg  the  body  of  Jesus  and  wrap  it  in  clean  linen 
and  lay  it  in  a  tomb.  And  on  account  of  this  w^e  se- 
cured thee  in  a  room  where  there  was  no  window ;  and 
we  put  locks  and  seals  upon  the  doors,  and  guards  kept 
watching  where  thou  wast  locked  in.  And  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  we  opened  and  found  thee  not,  and 


142  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

were  grieved  exceedingly ;  and  astonishment  fell  upon 
all  the  people  of  the  Lord  until  yesterday.  And  now 
relate  to  us  what  happened  to  thee." 

And  Joseph  said :  "On  the  preparation,  ahont  the 
tenth  hour,  you  locked  me  up,  and  I  remained  all  the 
Sabbath.  And  at  midnight,  as  I  was  standing  and 
praying,  the  room  where  you  locked  me  in  was  hung 
up  by  the  four  corners,  and  I  saw  a  light  like  lightning 
into  my  eyes.  And  I  was  afraid  and  fell  to  the  ground. 
And  someone  took  me  by  the  hand  and  remo\'ed  me 
from  the  place  where  I  had  fallen ;  and  moisture  of 
water  was  poured  from  my  head  even  to  my  feet,  and 
a  smell  of  perfumes  came  about  my  nostrils.  And 
He  wiped  my  face  and  kissed  me,  and  said  to  me, 
Fear  not,  Joseph :  open  thine  eyes  and  see  who  it  is 
that  speaks  to  thee.  And  looking  up,  I  saw  Jesus. 
And  I  trembled  and  thought  it  was  a  phantom,  and  I 
said  the  commandments,  and  he  said  them  with  me. 
Even  so  you  are  not  ignorant  that  a  phantom,  if  it 
meet  anybody  and  hear  the  commandments,  takes  no 
flight.  And  seeing  that  he  said  them  with  me,  I  said 
to  him,  Rabbi  Helias.  And  he  said  to  me,  'I  am  not 
Helias.'  And  I  said  to  him,  Who  art  thou,  my  Lord? 
And  he  said  to  me,  'I  am  Jesus  whose  body  thou  didst 
beg  from  Pilate ;  and  thou  didst  clothe  me  with  clean 
linen,  and  didst  put  a  napkin  on  my  face,  and  lay  me 
in  thy  new  tomb,  and  didst  roll  a  great  stone  to  the 
door  of  the  tomb.'    And  I  said  to  him  that  was  speak- 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  I43 

ing  to  me,  'Show  me  the  place  where  I  laid  thee.'  And 
he  carried  me  away  and  showed  me  the  place  where  I 
laid  him;  and  the  linen  cloth  was  lying  in  it,  and  the 
napkin  for  his  face.  And  I  knew  that  it  was  Jesus. 
And  he  took  me  by  the  hand  and  placed  me,  though 
the  doors  were  locked,  in  the  middle  of  my  house,  and 
led  me  away  to  my  bed  and  said  to  me,  'Peace  to  thee !' 
And  he  kissed  me  and  said  to  me,  'For  forty  days  go 
not  forth  out  of  thy  house;  for,  behold,  I  go  to  my 
brethren  in  Galilee." 

And  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites,  when  they  heard  these  words  from  Joseph, 
became  as  dead,  and  fell  to  the  ground,  and  fasted 
until  the  ninth  hour.  And  Nicodemus,  along  with 
Joseph,  exhorted  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  the  priests  and 
the  Levites,  saying :  "Rise  up  and  stand  upon  your 
feet,  and  taste  bread  and  strengthen  your  souls,  be- 
cause to-morrow  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord."  And 
they  rose  up  and  prayed  to  God,  and  ate  and  drank, 
and  departed  every  man  to  his  owni  house. 

And  on  the  Sabbath  our  teachers  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  sat  questioning  each  other  and  saying : 
"What  is  this  wrath  that  has  come  upon  us?  for  we 
know  his  father  and  mother."  Levi,  a  teacher,  says: 
"I  know  that  his  parents  fear  God,  and  do  not  with- 
draw themselves  from  the  prayers,  and  give  the  tithes 
thrice  a  year.  And  when  Jesus  was  born  his  parents 
brought  him  to  this  place  and  gave  sacrifices  and  burnt 


144  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

offerings  to  God.  And  when  the  great  teacher. 
Symeon,  took  him  into  his  arms,  he  said,  'Now  thou 
sendest  away  thy  servant,  Lord,  according  to  thy 
word,  in  peace;  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation, 
which  thou  hast  prepared  before  the  face  of  all  the 
peoples ;  a  light  for  the  revelation  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel.'  And  Symeon  blessed 
them,  and  said  to  Mary  his  mother,  'I  give  thee  good 
news  about  this  child.'  And  Mary  said,  'It  is  well, 
my  lord.'  And  Symeon  said  to  her,  'It  is  well ;  be- 
hold, he  lies  for  the  fall  and  the  rising  again  of  many 
in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign  spoken  against ;  and  of  thee 
thyself  a  sword  shall  go  through  the  soul,  in  order 
that  the  reasoning  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed.'  " 
They  say  to  the  teacher  Levi :  "How  knowest  thou 
these  things?"  Levi  says  to  them:  "Do  you  not  know 
that  from  him  I  learned  the  law?"  The  Sanhedrin 
say  to  him :  "We  wish  to  see  th)^  father."  And  they 
sent  for  his  father.  And  they  asked  him,  and  he  said 
to  them:  "Why  have  you  not  believed  my  son?  The 
blessed  and  just  Symeon  himself  taught  him  the  law." 
The  Sanhedrin  says  to  Rabbi  Levi :  "Is  the  word  that 
you  have  said  true?"  And  he  said :  "It  is  true."  And 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  the 
Levites  said  to  themselves ;  "Come,  let  us  send  into 
Galilee  to  the  three  men  that  came  and  told  about  his 
teaching  and  his  taking  up,  and  let  them  tell  us  how 
they  saw  him  taken  up."    And  this  saying  pleased  all. 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  i45 

And  they  sent  away  to  the  three  men  who  had  already 
gone  away  into  Gahlee  with  them ;  and  they  say  to 
them:  "Rabbi  Adas,  and  Rabbi  Phinees,  and  Rabbi 
Haggai,  peace  to  you  and  all  who  are  with  you !  A 
great  inquiry  having  taken  place  in  the  Sanhedrin,  we 
have  been  sent  for  you  to  call  you  to  this  holy  place, 
Jerusalem." 

And  the  men  set  out  into  Galilee  and  found  them 
sitting  and  considering  the  law ;  and  they  saluted  them 
in  peace.  And  the  men  who  were  in  Galilee  said  to 
those  who  had  come  to  them :  "Peace  unto  all  Israel !" 
And  they  said  :  "Peace  to  you !"  And  they  again  said 
to  them :  "Why  have  you  come?"  And  those  who  had 
been  sent  said :  "The  Sanhedrin  call  you  to  the  holy 
city  Jerusalem.  And  when  the  men  heard  that  they 
were  sought  by  the  Sanhedrin  they  prayed  to  God, 
and  reclined  with  the  men  and  ate  and  drank,  and  rose 
up  and  set  out  in  peace  to  Jerusalem. 

And  on  the  following  day  the  Sanhedrin  sat  in  the 
synagogue,  and  asked  them,  saying:  "Did  you  really 
see  Jesus  sitting  on  the  mountain  Mamilch  teaching 
liis  eleven  disciples,  and  did  you  see  him  taken  up?" 
And  the  men  answered  them  and  said :  "As  we  saw 
him  taken  up,  so  also  we  said." 

Annas  says :  "Take  them  away  from  one  another 
and  let  us  see  whether  their  account  agrees."  And 
they  took  them  away  from  one  another.  And  first 
they  call  Adas  and  say  to  him :  "How  didst  thou  see 


146  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

Jesus  taken  up?"  Adas  says :  "While  he  was  yet  sitting 
on  the  mountain  Mamilch  and  teaching  his  disciples, 
we  saw  a  cloud  overshadowing  both  him  and  his  dis- 
ciples. And  the  cloud  took  him  up  into  heaven,  and 
his  disciples  lay  upon  their  faces  upon  the  earth."  And 
they  call  Phinees,  the  priest ;  and  ask  him  also,  saying : 
"How  didst  thou  see  Jesus  taken  up?"  And  he  spoke 
in  like  manner.  And  they  again  asked  Haggai,  and  he 
spoke  in  like  manner.  And  the  Sanhedrin  said:  "The 
law  of  Moses  holds :  At  the  mouth  of  two  or  three 
every  word  shall  be  established."  Buthem,  a  teacher, 
says :  "It  is  written  in  the  law.  And  Enoch  walked 
with  God,  and  is  not,  because  God  took  him."  Jairus, 
a  teacher,  said :  "And  the  death  of  holy  Moses  we 
have  heard  of,  and  have  not  seen  it ;  for  it  is  written  in 
the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  Moses  died  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord,  and  no  man  knowest  of  his  sepulchre  unto 
this  day."  And  Rabbi  Levi  said:  "Why  did  Rabbi 
Symeon  say,  when  he  saw  Jesus,  'Behold,  he  lies  for 
the  fall  and  rising  again  of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a 
sign  spoken  ag^^inst'?"  And  Rabbi  Isaac  said:  "It  is 
written  in  the  law.  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  be- 
fore thy  face,  who  shall  go  before  thee  to  keep  thee  in 
every  good  way,  because  my  name  has  been  called 
upon  him." 

Then  Annas  and  Caiaphas  said :  "Rightly  have  you 
said  what  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  that  no  one 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  i47 

saw  the  death  of  Enoch,  and  no  one  has  named  the 
death  of  Moses ;  but  Jesus  was  tried  before  Pilate,  and 
we  saw  him  receiving  blows  and  spittings  on  his  face, 
and  the  soldiers  put  about  him  a  crown  of  thorns,  and 
he  was  scourged  and  received  sentence  from  Pilate, 
and  was  crucified  upon  the  Cranium,  and  two  robbers 
with  him;  and  they  gave  him  to  drink  vinegar  with 
gall,  and  Longinus,  the  soldier,  pierced  his  side  with  a 
spear;  and  Joseph,  our  honorable  father,  begged  his 
body,  and  he  says  he  is  risen;  and  as  the  three  teach- 
ers say,  'We  saw  him  taken  up  into  heaven' ;  and  Rabbi 
Levi  has  given  evidence  of  what  was  said  by  Rabbi 
Symeon,  and  that  he  said,  'Behold,  he  lies  for  the  fall 
and  rising  again  of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign 
spoken  against.'  "  And  all  the  teachers  said  to  all  the 
people  of  the  Lord :  "If  this  was  from  the  Lord,  and 
is  wonderful  in  your  eyes,  knowing  you  shall  know, 
O  house  of  Jacob,  that  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every 
one  that  hangeth  upon  a  tree.  And  another  Scripture 
teaches :  The  gods  which  have  not  made  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  shall  be  destroyed."  And  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  said  to  each  other :  "If  this  memorial  be 
until  the  year  that  is  called  Jobel,  know  that  it  shall 
endure  forever,  and  he  hath  raised  for  himself  a  new 
people."  Then  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the 
priests  and  the  Levites  announced  to  all  Israel,  say- 
ing :  "Cursed  is  that  man  who  shall  worship  the  work 
of  man's  hand,  and  cursed  is  the  man  who  shall  wor- 


148  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

ship  the  creatures  more  than  the  Creator."  And  all 
the  people  said,  "Amen,  Amen." 

And  all  the  people  praised  the  Lord,  and  said : 
"Blessed  is  the  Lord,  who  hath  given  rest  to  his  people 
Israel,  according  to  all  that  he  has  spoken;  there  hath 
not  fallen  one  word  of  every  good  word  of  his  that 
he  spoke  to  Moses,  his  servant.  May  the  Lord  our 
God  be  with  us,  as  he  was  with  our  fathers;  let  him 
not  destroy  us.  And  let  him  not  destroy  us,  that  we 
may  incline  our  hearts  to  him,  that  we  may  walk  in 
all  his  ways,  that  we  may  keep  his  commandments  and 
his  judgments  which  he  commanded  to  our  fathers. 
And  the  Lord  shall  be  king  over  all  the  earth  in  that 
day;  and  there  shall  be  one  Lord,  and  his  name  one. 
The  Lord  is  our  king;  he  shall  save  us.  There  is  none 
like  thee,  O  Lord.  Great  art  thou,  O  Lord,  and  great 
is  thy  name.  By  thy  power  heal  us,  O  Lord,  and  we 
shall  be  healed;  save  us,  O  Lord,  and  we  shall  be 
saved,  because  we  are  thy  lot  and  heritage.  And  the 
Lord  will  not  leave  his  people,  for  his  great  name's 
sake;  for  the  Lord  has  begun  to  make  us  into  his 
people." 

And  all,  having  sung  praises,  went  away  each  man 
to  his  own  house,  glorifying  God,  for  his  is  the  glory 
forever  and  ever.     Amen. 

Llebrew  law  did  not  permit  the  use  of  circumstan- 
tial evidence  in  criminal  cases.  Only  eye  witnesses  of 
the  offence  charged  were  competent.     A  strange  pro- 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  149 

vision  of  their  law  was  the  requirement  that  the  testi- 
mony of  each  witness  must  cover  the  entire  case. 
Proof  could  not  be  made  by  one  testifying  to  a  certain 
fact  which  constituted  a  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence, 
and  another  testifying  to  a  certain  other  fact  forming 
another  link.  This  was  forbidden  by  both  the  Penta- 
teuch and  the  Talmud.  The  statements  of  each  wit- 
ness must  fully  agree  as  to  the  main  circumstances. 
(See  Criminal  Jurisprudence  of  the  Ancient  He- 
brews, page  29.) 

It  was  settled  under  the  Talmudic  law  that  whoever 
would  not  tell  the  truth  without  swearing  to  it,  would 
not  scruple  to  assert  falsehood  under  oath,  so  no 
oath  was  required  in  the  modern  sense.  All  testimony 
was  given  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  the  ninth  com- 
mandment, "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against 
thy  neighbor."  As  each  witness  was  called  to  testify, 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  court  administered  the  fol- 
lowing solemn  warning  or  adjuration,  in  the  presence 
of  the  entire  court : 

"Forget  not,  O  witness,  that  it  is  one  thing  to  give 
evidence  in  a  trial  as  to  money  and  another  in  a  trial 
for  life.  In  a  money  suit,  if  thy  witness-bearing  shall 
do  wrong,  money  may  repair  that  wrong.  But  in  this 
trial  for  life,  if  thou  sinnest,  the  blood  of  the  accused 
and  the  blood  of  his  seed  to  the  end  of  time  shall  be 
imputed  unto  thee.  .  .  .  Therefore  was  Adam 
created  one  man  and  alone,  to  teach  thee  that  if  any 


ISO  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

witness  shall  destroy  one  soul  out  of  Israel,  he  is  held 
by  the  Scripture  to  be  as  if  he  had  destroyed  the 
world ;  and  he  who  saves  one  such  soul  to  be  as  if  he 
had  saved  the  world.  .  .  .  For  a  man  from  one  sig- 
net ring  may  strike  off  man}'  impressions,  and  all  of 
them  shall  be  exactly  alike.  But  He,  the  King  of  the 
kings  of  kings,  He  the  Holy  and  the  Blessed,  has 
struck  off  from  His  type  of  the  first  man  the  forms  of 
all  men  that  shall  live,  yet  so  that  no  one  human  being 
is  wholly  alike  to  any  other.  Wherefore  let  us  think 
and  believe  that  the  whole  world  is  created  for  a  man 
such  as  he  whose  life  hangs  on  thy  words.  But  these 
ideas  must  not  deter  thee  from  testifying  to  what  thou 
actually  knowest.  Scripture  declares :  'The  witness 
who  hath  seen  or  known,  and  doth  not  tell,  shall  bear 
his  iniquity.'  Nor  must  ye  scruple  about  becoming 
the  instrument  of  the  alleged  criminal's  death.  Re- 
member the  Scriptural  maxim :  'In  the  destruction  of 
the  wicked,  there  is  joy.'  " 

Yet  in  the  light  of  the  fact  and  the  law,  we  find 
many  modern  day  writers  who  assert  for  the  purpose 
of  making  their  case  more  secure,  that  Jesus  was  put 
under  oath  during-  the  progress  of  this  trial,  when  as 
a  matter  of  fact  the  oath  was  unknown  in  criminal 
jurisprudence. 

Under  the  Hebrew  law,  the  accused  was  never  com- 
pelled to  testify  against  himself.  Yet  his  confession 
of  guilt  was  accepted  in  evidence  and  considered  in 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  151 

connection  with  the  other  facts  in  the  case.  We  find 
in  Maimonides,  Chapter  iv,  p.  2,  the  following: 
"Should  a  man  make  his  confession  of  guilt  before  a 
legally  constituted  tribunal,  such  confession  is  not  to 
be  used  against  him  unless  properly  attested  by  two 
witnesses." 

In  the  trial  of  Jesus  on  the  charge  of  treason,  we 
have  his  own  admission  which  under  the  Roman  law 
constituted  undeniably  a  confession  of  guilt,  and  all 
authorities,  both  profane  and  evangelical,  bear  out  the 
fact  that  independent  of  his  testimony,  but  corrobor- 
ative of  it,  there  were  many  witnesses. 

We  doubt  whether  in  the  light  of  to-day  there  can 
be  found  any  intelligent  person  of  learning  who  will 
honestly  assert  that  taken  as  a  human  man  alone,  on 
trial  under  the  Roman  law,  there  was  not  sufficient 
legal  evidence  to  justify  a  conviction  on  a  charge  of 
treason. 

Referring  for  the  moment  back  to  the  competency 
of  the  testimony  which  it  is  claimed  Jesus  was  obliged 
to  give  against  himself  in  the  Hebrew  court,  the  fol- 
lowing is  of  deep  interest :  Some  years  ago  a  profes- 
sor of  theology  in  the  University  of  St.  Petersburg 
purchased  at  a  shop  in  Moscow  a  manuscript  copy  of 
the  Gospels  dating  from  prior  to  A.  D.  600.  On  ex- 
amination it  was  found  to  have  belonged  to  the  great 
library  collected  in  his  youth  by  Ivan  the  Terrible,  who 
lived  from  1530  to  1584.     He  was  First  Grand  Duke 


152  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

of  Moscow,  and  by  sheer  force  made  himself  the  First 
Czar  of  Russia.  In  early  Hfe,  he  beHeved  that  he  had 
a  divine  mission.  The  library  which  he  collected  was 
thought  to  have  been  burned  in  the  great  fire  of  Mos- 
cow of  1812.  This,  however,  has  been  disproven  from 
the  fact  that  this  copy,  together  with  many  other  sim- 
ilar volumes,  have  been  discovered  in  a  subterranean 
passage  near  the  Kremlin.  This  copy  of  the  Gospels 
in  many  senses  is  unlike  any  other  in  existence.  A 
study  of  its  pages  throws  new  light  on  the  incidents 
which  pertain  to  the  trial  of  Jesus. 

Here  we  have  new  found  evidence  of  the  legality  of 
the  trial  of  the  Nazarene.  In  its  pages  will  be  found 
comment  upon  his  becoming  a  witness  against  himself 
before  the  Jewish  Senate.  The  following  is  stated  to 
be  the  law  then  prevailing,  as  applicable  to  the  case  in 
hand  :  It  is  held  that  the  Sanhedrin  for  the  purpose  of 
finding  the  fact  had  a  right  to  take  the  omission  of  the 
defendant  to  explain  his  language  against  him.  While 
not  required  under  the  law  tO'  take  the  witness  stand, 
nor  could  he  be  compelled  to  testify  at  all,  and  if  he 
fails  to  do  so,  no  inference  unfavorable  to  him  may  be 
drawn  from  that  fact,  yet  where  he  elects  to  go  upon 
the  witness  stand  and  testify,  he  then  subjects  himself 
to  the  same  rule  as  that  applying  to  any  other  witness. 
And  if  he  fails  to  deny  or  explain  acts  of  a  seeming 
incriminating  nature  that  the  evidence  of  the  prosecu- 
tion tends  to  establish  against  him,  such  failure  may 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  153 

be  considered  by  the  court  with  all  the  other  circum- 
stances in  reaching-  their  conclusion  as  to  his  guilt  or 
innocence. 

It  is  stated  as  a  legitimate  inference  that  could  he 
have  truthfully  denied  or  satisfactorily  explained  the 
incriminating  evidence  against  him,  he  would  have 
done  so. 

Salvador,  who  may  be  considered  as  the  Jewish 
Blackstone,  has  to  say  concerning  the  condemnation 
of  Jesus :  "The  Senate  declared  that  Jesus,  son  of 
Joseph,  born  at  Bethlehem,  had  profaned  the  name  of 
God  in  usurping  it  for  himself,  a  simple  citizen." 
While  Schurer  was  of  opinion,  as  indicated  in  the  first 
volume  of  his  work,  that  this  condemnation  proceed- 
ing or  conviction  was  set  aside  by  Pilate,  and  in  this 
view  we  agree. 

According  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt,  ix, 
2-3;  Luke  V,  21),  Jesus  was  guilty  of  blasphemy  by 
claiming  the  power  which  alone  belonged  to  Jehovah. 
The  entire  New  Testament  furnishes  abundant  evi- 
dence that  Jesus,  the  man  and  Jewish  citizen,  did  at 
divers  times  and  places  commit  blasphemy  against 
Jehovah  under  any  fair  interpretation  of  the  law.  The 
policy  and  precepts  of  the  new  dispensation  inaugur 
rated  by  Jesus  cannot  be  considered  in  a  legal  sense  to 
have  been  binding  upon  the  Sanhedrin.  If  we  are  to 
accept  the  Bible,  then  the  very  claims  of  Jesus  to  Mes- 
siah ship  and  identity  with  God  were  to  be  tested  by 


154  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  code,  and  in  the  Hght  of 
Hebrew  prophecy. 

Mr.  Greenleaf,  the  author,  recognized  as  an  author- 
ity, holds  unquestionably  that  the  trial  was  "substan- 
tially right  in  point  of  law." 

We  cannot  find  that  there  is  any  merit  in  the  con- 
tention that  the  arrest  of  Jesus  was  illegal  because  the 
Jewish  law  prohibited  all  proceedings  by  night. 

Nowhere  do  we  find  that  the  Sanhedrin  authorities 
employed  Judas  and  that  he  became  an  accomplice  with 
Jesus  in  consequence  thereof;  but  even  if  under  a 
strict  construction  Judas  was  an  accomplice,  it  only 
follows  that  under  the  law  then  existing,  or  to-day, 
that  his  testimony  needed  corroboration, — a  conviction 
could  not  be  had  upon  his  statement  alone.  Conse- 
quently the  second  element  of  illegality  in  the  arrest 
has  been  disposed  of. 

The  third  illegality  charged  in  the  arrest  of  Jesus 
was  that  his  capture  was  not  the  result  of  a  legal  man- 
date from  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  We  find 
nothing  in  this  to  warrant  the  charge  of  illegality.  No 
grand  juries  were  called  in  those  days;  no  indictments 
were  found,  as 'they  are  to-day;  no  warrants  were  is- 
sued by  a  court  for  the  arrest  of  any  one.  The  order 
of  the  court  was  delivered  verbally  in  effect,  "Go  out 
and  get  this  man." 

The  so-called  private  examination  before  Annas  or 
Caiaphas  was  not  illegal,  as  it  formed  no  part  of  the 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  155 

proceedings  of  the  trial  court.  It  was,  if  anything,  in 
the  nature  of  a  preliminary  examination.  If  cause 
were  found,  then  the  accused  was  presented  for  trial 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  otherwise  not.  We  take  it  that 
at  the  worst  the  hearing,  if  such  it  can  be  termed,  be- 
fore the  magistrate  was  mild  in  comparison  with  the 
"third  degree"  methods  employed  throughout  the 
United  States  to-day.  Whether  it  was  Annas  or 
Caiaphas  who  examined  Jesus,  neither  claimed  the 
right  to  sit  alone  as  judge,  and  we  submit  that  the 
hearing  could  not  in  any  way  be  considered  as  a  part 
of  the  judicial  proceeding  known  as  the  trial.  We 
cannot  construe  the  language  of  Salvador  in  the  light 
which  it  is  claimed  it  shows,  that  such  proceedings  as 
a  preliminary  examination  were  not  allowed  by  He- 
brew law. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  what  the  charges  made 
against  Jesus  in  the  Sanhedrin  came  within  the  crim- 
inal procedure  of  the  Mosaic  code  requiring  certainty. 
(Salvador,  "Institutions  de  Moise,"  p.  365).  No- 
where is  it  claimed,  that  we  are  aware,  that  the  San- 
hedrin did  other  than  investigate  the  charges  which 
many  prosecutors  testified  to.  (Edersheim,  "Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah,"  vol.  i,  p.  309.) 

The  first  ecclesiastical  trial  of  Jesus  took  place 
about  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  (Fiske,  Manual  of 
Classical  Literature,  iii,  sec.  108 ;  Smith,  Dictionary 
of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  89).     After  the  evi- 


156  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

dence  had  been  heard  and  argument  had,  an  adjourn- 
ment was  taken,  and,  according  to  St.  Luke,  there  was 
a  second  trial,  as  required  by  law.     (Luke,  xxii,  66.) 

As  to  whether  the  Sanhedrin  could  hold  a  legal  ses- 
sion before  the  offering  of  the  morning  sacrifice  is  a 
matter  of  minor  importance,  hardly  worthy  of  consid- 
eration. It  might  as  well  be  said  that  because  it  was 
the  custom  for  a  judge  of  one  of  our  courts  to  have 
his  breakfast  before  a  session  of  the  tribunal  over 
which  he  presided,  that  if  he  failed  to  his  regular  meal, 
then  all  proceedings  of  that  day's  court  were  in  conse- 
quence void. 

The  writer  cannot  find  outside  of  Mishna  Sanhedrin 
iv.  I,  that  it  was  the  law  existing  at  the  time  of  Jesus 
that  no  man  should  be  judged  on  the  eve  of  the  Sab- 
bath, nor  on  that  of  any  festival.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered in  this  connection  that  the  Mishna  was  not  re- 
duced to  writing  until  after  200  years  beginning  with 
our  era.  The  Jerusalem  Talmud  was  not  re-acted  un- 
til A.  D.  390,  and  the  Babylonial  Talmud  A.  D.  427. 
It  is  claimed,  and  Ave  believe  fairly  so,  that  the  rules  of 
criminal  procedure  invoked  in  the  discussion  of  this 
case  were  growths  of  the  periods  intervening  between 
A.  D.  30  and  A.  D.  427.  We  fail  to  find  that  the 
criminal  rules  applied  in  these  authorities  are  traceable 
in  the  same  form  to  Mosaic  provisions  claimed  to  have 
been  framed  more  than  a  thousand  years  before  Jesus. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  characteristic  features  of 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  157 

the  criminal  procedure  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  indi- 
cated cautiousness  and  slowness  in  judgment,  yet  we 
do  not  find  any  authority  sacred  or  profane,  that  a 
sentence  of  death  could  not  be  pronounced  in  a  pro- 
ceeding before  a  competent  court  wherein  the  trial  was 
concluded  in  one  day. 

It  has  been  charged,  and  modern  day  writers  are 
profuse  in  their  statements,  that  the  finding  of  guilty 
pronounced  against  Jesus  by  the  Sanhedrin  was  illegal 
because  it  was  founded  upon  his  uncorroborated  con- 
fession. As  to  this  we  can  only  say  the  wish  must 
have  been  father  to  the  thought.  There  is  no  author- 
ity to  be  found  anywhere  which  bears  out  the  state- 
ments. Whether  we  take  Mark  (Mark  xiv,  56-65) 
"Martyrdom  of  Jesus,"  "The  Criminal  Jurisprudence 
of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,"  or  Luke  in  his  statement  of 
the  fact,  it  will  be  found  throughout  that  "many"  wit- 
nesses were  called  and  testified  to  the  guilt  of  Jesus  on 
the  charge  of  blasphemy. 

We  have  already  shown  that  a  unanimous  verdict 
of  guilt  was  not  rendered,  that  at  least  two  of  the 
judges  defended  the  accused,  and  reference  thereto  in 
the  earlier  pages  dispose  of  these  charges  of  illegality. 
The  best  that  can  be  said  of  the  statements  contained 
in  the  Bible  that  a  unanimous  finding  of  the  counsel 
was  had  is  that  it  is  but  a  figure  of  speech.  In  view 
of  authorities  cited,  we  shall  leave  the  matter  to  the 
reader  to  draw  his  own  inferences. 


158  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

That  Jesus  was  not  without  friends  among  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  is  shown  in  John  iii,  i,  and 
vii,  50;  in  Luke  xxiii,  51.  It  is  known  that  Nico- 
demus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea  were  friends  of  Jesus, 
and  they  were  certainly  members  of  the  Great  Sanhe- 
drin. We  cannot  beHeve  that  in  the  trial  at  least  these 
two  did  not  offer  some  word  of  explanation  for  the  ac- 
cused. Both  Matthew  and  Mark  have  said  "all  the 
council"'  were  present,  and  Mark  undoubtedly  wrote 
truthfully  from  his  understanding-  when  he  said  "they 
all  condemned  him  to  be  guilty  of  death."  It  then  fol- 
lows naturally  and  inevitably  that  both  Nicodemus  and 
Joseph  voted  against  Jesus. 

There  is  no  evidence  so  far  as  we  know  that  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  was  pronounced  in  a  place  for- 
bidden by  law.  Neither  can  we  find  that  uncovering 
of  the  head  or  rending  of  his  clothes  by  the  high  priest, 
would  tend  to  make  either  void  or  voidable  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  court.  It  is  true  that  Leviticus  x,  6, 
lays  down  the  law  as  given  by  Moses  to  Aaron,  and 
others,  "Uncover  not  your  heads  nor  rend  your 
clothes,  lest  ye  die."  The  worst  that  can  be  said  is 
that  the  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Caiaphas  in  rending 
his  clothes  was  an  act  showing  lack  of  dignity. 

Reference  is  made  to  these  different  features  of  the 
charges  wherein  illegality  has  been  charged  so  as  to  ex- 
plain so  far  as  possible  that  the  facts  claimed  are  not 
those  which  are  borne  out  by  the  testimony  and  au- 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  159 

thorities.  Even  if  all  of  the  illegal  features  charged 
by  the  writers  of  the  Twentieth  Century,  and  fore- 
going, were  to  be  accepted  as  true,  yet  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  Pilate  when  he  came  to  pass  upon  the  testi- 
mony submitted,  and  to  review  all  of  the  acts  of  the 
Great  Sanhedrin,  found,  as  he  did  find,  that  the  ver- 
dict of  that  court  was  not  one  upon  which  he  could 
either  legally  or  conscientiously  justify  himself  in  im- 
posing the  capital  penalty ;  then  whatever  wrongs  were 
committed,  if  any  there  were,  were  overcome  and  legal 
right  prevailed  by  the  final  judgment  of  the  Procu- 
rator when  he  said,  "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man  at  all." 
These  words  constituted  a  dismissal  of  the  appeal, 
and  became  the  final  judgment  entered  by  the  Roman 
governor,  who  as  chief  executive  had  full  and  com- 
plete power  and  authority  to  act  as  he  did  in  the 
premises. 


THE   ROMAN    TRIAL 


The  Roman  Trial. 

The  accusers  of  Jesus  before  the  Sanhedrin  having 
failed  through  the  action  of  Pilate  in  securing  the  con- 
demnation sought,  and  the  imposition  of  the  death 
penalty  were  not  satisfied.  They  must  have  recourse 
to  other  charges  to  be  prosecuted  in  another  forum. 
The  mightiest  jurisdiction  of  the  earth  having  assumed 
cognizance  of  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  and  this  charge 
now  failing,  there  was  nothing  left  to  do  but  to  pre- 
sent to  Pilate  a  new  indictment  founded  upon  entirely 
different  charges  to  substantiate  which  many  witnesses 
could  be  found. 

It  was  treason  undoubtedly  for  one  to  proclaim  him- 
self a  king,  or  ruler  of  the  people  of  any  province 
which  was  at  that  time  subservient  to  Roman  domin- 
ion. The  charges  which  were  preferred  against  Jesus 
before  the  Sanhedrin  could  not  be  urged  again  in  the 
Roman  forum.  The  Roman  law  must  be  applied  to 
the  charges  now  to  be  made.  The  forms  of  criminal 
procedure  employed  by  Pilate  in  conducting  the  Rom- 
an trial  were  those  then  ordinarily  in  force.  Taking 
into  consideration  the  admissions  of  Jesus,  and  the  tes- 
timony of  the  witnesses  who  appeared  against  him, 


i64  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

under  the  law  of  the  land  of  that  day  Pilate  was  legally 
and  politically  justified  in  delivering  Jesus  to  be  cru- 
cified. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  at  all  times  that  these  two 
trials  of  Jesus  were  separate  and  independent  so  far  as 
the  charges,  judges,  and  jurisdictions  were  concerned, 
and  that  the  only  common  elements  were  the  persons 
of  the  accusers  and  the  accused. 

Under  the  law  as  then  existing,  as  applied  to  Roman 
criminal  trials,  the  first  step  was  the  filing  of  an  appli- 
cation with  the  presiding  magistrate  for  permission  to 
bring  the  alleged  criminal  charge  against  a  certain  per- 
son. In  case  the  accused  was  caught  red-handed,  or 
if  he  happened  to  be  within  the  forum,  then  the  accu- 
sation was  made  direct.  Like  the  Jewish  law,  Roman 
jurisprudence  at  this  time  did  not  know  states'  attor- 
neys or  public  prosecutors,  as  that  application  is  made 
to-day.  Any  private  citizen,  whether  one  of  the  accu- 
sers or  not,  might  take  upon  himself  the  public  prose- 
cution in  behalf  of  the  government.  It  was,  however, 
the  law  that  but  one  prosecutor  could  appear  unless 
there  was  more  than  one  crime  charged.  With  the 
accused  before  the  court,  he  could  then  be  interrogated 
at  length  concerning  the  facts  of  the  crime.  This  pro- 
ceeding, generally  speaking,  was  thus  in  the  nature  of 
a  modern  grand  jury  inquisition,  and  concluded  the 
preliminary  step. 

The  penalty  imposed  under  the  Roman  law  for  the 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  165 

crime  of  treason  was  crucifixion.  This  form  of  pun^ 
ishment,  while  unknown  to  the  ancient  Hebrews,  had 
long  been  in  force  in  the  domains  of  Caesar ;  indeed,  it 
may  be  said  for  very  many  years  before  his  time.  The 
ancient  Egyptians  practiced  it.  The  Carthaginians, 
Persians,  Germans,  Assyrians,  and  Greeks,  as  well  as 
the  Romans  themselves.  History  records  the  fact  that 
the  Romans  employed  this  form  of  punishment  on  a 
gigantic  scale,  the  Roman  General,  Varlus,  having  cru- 
cified two  thousand  Jews  in  one  day  at  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem.  At  the  close  of  the  war  with  Spartacus, 
the  gladiator,  ten  thousand  slaves  were  crucified.  This 
was  meted  out  to  such  as  were  guilty  of  robbery,  pi- 
racy, perjury,  sedition,  assassination  and  treason. 

Preliminary  to  crucifixion  the  accused  was  scourged, 
thus  the  terrible  flagellum  came  into  play.  IntO'  this 
instrument  of  torture  were  stuck  nails,  pieces  of  bone, 
so  as  to  heighten  the  pain  of  the  victim. 

After  the  flagellation,  the  prisoner  was  taken  out- 
side the  city  to  the  place  of  execution.  The  accused 
was  compelled  to  carry  his  own  cross  and  to  watch  all 
the  preparations  for  his  torture.  He  saw  the  cross 
driven  into  the  ground,  and  having  been  stripped 
naked,  he  was  lifted  upon  and  nailed  to  it.  The  body 
of  the  accused  was  fastened  to  the  cross  by  nails, 
driven  through  the  hands  and  feet,  although  history 
records  many  instances  in  which  the  feet  were  merely 
bound  by  cords. 


i66  THE   LEGALITY    OF 

The  pictures  which  have  been  shown  from  time  to 
time  and  are  displayed  in  works  of  art  of  crosses  used 
in  execution,  are  decidedly  misrepresenting.  They  are 
shown  as  too  large  and  too  high.  The  real  cross  of 
antiquity  was  about  six  feet  in  height,  the  head  of  the 
accused  being  at  the  top,  and  whose  feet  came  down 
to  the  ground.  Pictorial  art  is  also  false  in  failing  to 
show  a  projecting  beam  near  the  center  of  the  cross 
upon  which  the  criminal  sat. 

Roman  records  tell  us  also  that  often  the  legs  of  the 
criminal  were  broken,  fires  built  about  him,  and  again 
wild  beasts  were  turned  loose  upon  him.  Sepulchre 
was  generally  forbidden  by  law,  although  there  were 
exceptions  to  the  rule.  Pilate  consented  in  the  case  of 
Jesus,  at  the  request  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  that  the 
body  might  be  taken  down  and  buried.      (John  xix, 

38-41.) 

Richter  gives  the  following  pathological  phases  of 
death  b}'  crucifixion.  His  account  has  been  reproduced 
in  Strong  and  McClintock  "Encyclopedia." 

1.  The  unnatural  position  and  violent  tension  of 
the  body,  the  least  motion  causing  a  painful  sensation. 

2.  The  nails  being  driven  through  the  hands  and 
feet  cut  and  irritate  the  nerves  and  tendons,  thus  creat- 
ing a  most  exquisite  anguish. 

3.  The  exposure  of  wounds  and  lacerations  tends 
to  bring'  on  inflammation,  and  later  gangrene. 

4.  As  more  blood  flows  through  the  arteries  than 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  167 

can  be  carried  back  into  the  veins  owing  to  the  dis- 
tended parts  of  the  body,  the  blood  vessels  of  the  head 
become  pressed  and  swollen,  causing  intense  excite- 
ment, exertion  and  anxiety. 

5.     Lingering  anguish,  burning  and  raging  thirst. 

The  intense  sufferings  and  prolonged  agony  of  cru- 
cifixion are  well  presented  in  the  Arab  manuscript 
entitled  "The  Meadow  of  Flowers  and  the  Fragrant 
Odor."  (See  "Chrestomathia  Arabica,"  by  Rosegar- 
ten,  published  in  1828.) 

The  indictment  which  was  brought  against  Jesus  is 
contained  in  a  single  verse  in  St.  Luke :  "And  they 
began  to  accuse  him,  saying,  'We  found  this  fellow 
perverting  the  nation,  and  forbidding  to  give  tribute 
to  Caesar,  saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ,  the  King.'  " 
Pilate  took  cognizance  of  this  accusation;  there  could 
be  no  mistake  as  to  the  nature  of  the  charge,  or  the 
meaning  of  the  language.  It  was  clearly  high  treason 
against  Caesar.  No  greater  crime  was  known  to 
Roman  law. 

In  defining  treason  Ulpian  says :  "Majestatis  crimen 
illud  est  quod  adversus  populuin  Romanum  vel  adver- 
sus  securitatem  ejus  committitur."  (Digest  xlviii,  4.) 
Practically  the  same  definition  is  admirably  given  by 
Cicero,  and  will  be  found  in  De  Inventione  ii,  17.  A 
fair  translation  of  the  above  would  read,  "Treason  is 
an  insult  to  the  dignity  and  an  attack  upon  the  sov- 
ereignty." 


3  68  THE   LEGALITY   OF 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  at  this  time  Tiberius 
Caesar  was  Emperor  of  Rome ;  he  was  a  morbid  tyrant, 
fretful  and  suspicious.  He  had  no  love  for  pernicious 
activity  or  political  disturbance.  While  it  is  true  that 
Christianity  was  not  on  trial  before  Pilate,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  Creator  of  Christianity  was,  and 
the  same  legal  principles  were  extant  and  applicable 
in  A.  D.  30  that  years  afterward  brought  the  followers 
of  the  Nazarene  and  the  Roman  State  into  mortal 
conflict. 

We  believe  it  to  be  true  that  the  Roman  law  applic- 
able to  the  trial  of  Jesus  and  which  formed  the  basis 
of  the  complaint  against  him  was  the  lex  Julia  Majes- 
tatis,  which  first  became  operative  48  B.  C.  Under 
this  law,  a  claim  of  equal  standing  with  the  king  or 
ruler  constituted  treason,  and  was  subject  to  the  death 
penalty. 

The  priestly  accusers  appear  before  the  Roman  judge. 
They  had  been  turned  down  so  far  as  their  first  wishes 
were  concerned,  and  the  action  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin 
in  condemning  Jesus  had  not  been  confirmed;  order 
was  had  in  court  and  Pilate  from  the  bema  asked : 

"What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?" 

The  words  ring  with  Roman  authority  and  adminis- 
trative capacity.  Then  the  chief  priests  and  scribes 
made  reply : 

*Tf  he  were  not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have 
delivered  him  up  unto  thee." 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  169 

Meaning-  that  if  he  were  not  guilty  of  an  offence 
they  would  not  have  presented  him  for  trial.  They 
meant  to  convey  to  the  mind  of  Pilate  that  while  the 
judgment  of  the  Sanhedrin  had  been  set  aside,  yet  that 
Jesus  was  amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

Pilate,  clearly  disgusted  with  the  accusers  of  Jesus, 
and  with  their  persistency  in  insisting  upon  his  pun- 
ishment, in  a  tone  of  contemptuous  scorn  said : 

"Take  ye  him  and  judge  him  according  to  your 
law." 

Undoubtedly  Pilate  intended  that  Jesus  should  be 
taken  by  his  accusers  and  tried  for  some  minor  ofifence, 
the  penalty  for  which  the  Jews  were  already  empow- 
ered to  execute.  This  seems  to  be  clearly  shown  to  be 
the  understanding  of  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  as 
shown  by  their  reply : 

"It  IS  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death." 
(John  xviii,  31.) 

Nothing  short  of  a  death  penalty  would  do;  the 
crime  they  were  about  to  charge  him  with  in  the 
Roman  forum  was  one  which  knew  of  no  other  pen- 
alty. When  the  crime  of  treason  w^as  charged  Pilate, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  could  not  say,  I  do  not 
wish  to  meddle  in  this  matter.  A  specific  charge  hav- 
ing been  made,  he  could  not  but  assume  cognizance  of 
the  case,  and  then  it  was  that  the  indictment  as  pre- 
sented was  urged.  It  is  given  in  a  single  verse  of  St. 
Luke  (Luke  xxiii,  2)  : 


170  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

"We  found  this  fellow  perverting  the  nation,  and 
forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Csesar,  saying  that  he 
himself  is  Christ,  a  King." 

Here  was  a  charge  which  was  in  effect  a  political 
offence.  It  was  entirely  different  than  the  religious 
accusation  from  which  Jesus  had  just  been  freed.  The 
first  charge  that  he  was  perverting  the  nation,  while 
g-eneral  in  its  character,  and  indefinite,  was  undoubted- 
ly against  the  Roman  law.  It  was  sedition,  one  of  the 
forms  of  treason.  The  second  charge  that  he  had  for- 
bidden to  give  tribute  to  Caesar  was  much  more  serious. 
This  in  itself  was  a  form  of  treason.  It  was  an  open 
defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  Roman  Empire.  More 
than  that :  Coming  from  the  source  it  did,  it  was  a 
direct  denial  of  Roman  sovereignty  in  Palestine.  But 
the  greatest  of  all  the  charges  made  was  found  in  the 
accusation  that  the  prisoner  claimed  to  be  "Christ,  a 
king."  This  was  high  treason  against  Caesar;  it  was 
the  greatest  offence  known  to  the  law  of  the  Romans. 
As  a  loyal  deputy  of  the  Emperor,  Pilate  could  not 
ignore  the  charge. 

At  the  examination  which  followed,  the  Roman 
governor  brushed  aside  the  first  two  charges  as  not 
worthy  of  serious  consideration.  Pilate  must  have 
thought  if  this  fellow  pretends  to  be  a  King  as  Simon 
did  before  him,  if  the  prisoner  says  that  Judea  has  a 
right  to  have  a  King  of  its  own  other  than  Caesar, 
then  this  is  indeed  treason. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  171 

All  the  Evangelists,  beginning  with  John  xviii,  34, 
give  substantially  the  same  account  of  the  interroga- 
tion of  Jesus  within  the  palace  walls  of  Pilate.  Ques- 
tion after  question  was  asked  and  adroitly  answered. 
Pilate  said:  "Art  thou  king  of  the  Jews?"  and  Jesus 
evaded  the  question  by  inquiring  himself :  "Sayest 
thou  this  thing  of  thyself,  or  did  others  tell  it  thee  of 
me  ?"  In  other  words,  Jesus  wanted  to  know  whether 
the  question  was  asked  from  a  Roman  or  a  Jewish 
standpoint.  Pilate  quickly  answered,  "Am  I  a  Jew?" 
and  to  this  Jesus  replied,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world." 

He  must  have  meant  that  there  could  be  no  possible 
rivalry  between  himself  and  Caesar,  and  yet  indirectly 
he  had  proclaimed  himself  as  master  of  a  kingdom. 
To  this  Pilate  put  the  question  direct,  "Art  thou  a 
King  then  ?"  And  Jesus,  in  effect,  answered :  You 
have  correctly  stated  it.  I  am  a  king.  I  was  born  to 
be  one. 

The  examination  at  this  point  was  interrupted  by 
witnesses  and  prosecutors,  who  urged  new  accusations, 
saying:  "He  stirreth  up  the  people,  teaching  through- 
out all  Judea,  beginning  from  Galilee  to  this  place." 
The  evidence  taken  there  indicated  that  Jesus  was  a 
Galilean,  so  Pilate,  in  view  of  that  fact,  sent  Jesus  to 
be  tried  by  the  governor  of  the  province  to  which  he 
belonged.  This  was  Herod,  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  who 
at  that  very  moment  was  in  Jerusalem  in  attendance 


172  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

upon  the  Passover  feasts.  Under  the  escort  of  an  at- 
tachment of  the  Praetorian  soldiery,  Jesus  was  led  to 
the  palace  of  the  Maccabees  for  further  hearing  and 
trial. 

None  of  the  technicalities  that  might  be  urged  in 
relation  to  the  trial  of  Jesus  before  the  Great  Sanhe- 
drin  can  apply  to  this  hearing  before  either  Herod  or 
Pilate  in  Roman  jurisdiction.  It  did  not  matter  under 
the  law  whether  the  hearing  was  conducted  the  day 
before  the  Sabbath,  or  whether  it  was  on  a  feast  day. 
It  was  quite  immaterial  whether  the  morning  sacri- 
fices had  been  had,  or  whether  any  of  the  many  minor 
objections  which  are  said  to  constitute  "illegality,"  in 
the  Jewish  trial,  were  noted.  Jesus  was  now  on  trial 
charged  with  an  offence  distinctly  against  the  Roman 
law.  He  was  in  a  Roman  court,  and  if  convicted  the 
punishment  which  would  be  meted  out  to  him  would 
be  under  the  Roman  law. 

To  Herod  Antipas,  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  Jesus  was 
led  to  be  judged.  Herod  was  a  typical  Oriental 
prince.  He  himself  was  the  murderer  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  as  compared  with  him  Pilate  unquestionably 
was  eminently  respectable.  Just  what  transpired  during 
that  hearing  history  does  not  record.  Herod  un- 
doubtedly thought  that  Jesus  had  been  sent  there  for  a 
purpose,  and  while  he  did  not  wish  to  excite  the  enmity 
of  Caesar  by  dismissing  the  accused,  he  feared  in  his 
soul  to  find  him  guilty  as  charged.     His  treatment  of 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  I73 

Jesus  indicated  that  he  beheved  him  to  be  a  magician, 
clever  at  mystification  and  illusion,  possibly  a  ventril- 
oquist, whose  powers  of  entertainment  were  very  ex- 
ceptional. "Then  he  questioned  him  with  many  words, 
but  he  answered  him  nothing."     (Luke  xxiii,  9.) 

Herod  found  himself  in  the  position  which  required 
that  he  continue  and  conclude  the  examination  of 
Jesus.  "And  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  stood  by 
and  vehemently  accused  him."     (Luke  xxxii,  10.) 

A  careful  study  of  all  history  indicates  that  Herod 
enraged  that  a  simple  Galilean  peasant  would  not  seri- 
ously treat  his  questions,  that  by  his  silence  he  denied 
his  jurisdiction,  and  considering  that  he  had  been 
mocked,  then  found  that  Jesus  was  guilty  and  caused 
him  to  be  arrayed  in  a  gorgeous  robe  and  returned 
him;  to  Pilate,  the  Procurator,  for  sentence. 

On  his  return  to  Pilate,  a  demand  was  made  of  the 
Procurator  that  he  cause  the  death  of  Jesus  in  conse- 
quence of  the  finding  of  Plerod.  To  satisfy  himself, 
Jesus  was  called  within  the  Temple  by  Pilate,  and 
asked,  "Whence  art  thou?"  Undoubtedly  the  Roman 
Governor  was  hoping  that  he  would  receive  a  denial 
that  the  accused  was  a  Galilean,  which  would  thereby 
have  rendered  the  finding  of  Herod  illegal,  because  of 
lack  of  jurisdiction,  but  Jesus  answered  nothing.  He 
would  not  explain  nor  justify  himself,  seeing  which 
his  accusers  framed  their  last  menace  in  these  words : 

"If   thou   let  this   man  go,   thou   art   not  Caesar's 


174  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

friend;  whosoever  maketh  himself  a  King,  speaketh 
against  Caesar." 

A  demand  was  made  upon  him,  "Crucify  him! 
Crucify  him!"  The  hundreds  surrounding  Pilate  un- 
derstood full  well  the  penalty  for  a  charge  as  serious 
as  that  of  treason.  There  was  but  one  answer  to  the 
finding  of  guilty,  crucifixion.  Three  times  Pilate 
asked  of  those  who  were  about  him,  "What  evil  hath 
he  done,"  and  in  thundering  tones  his  answer  came : 
"He  has  been  guilty  of  proclaiming  himself  a  King; 
he  hath  set  himself  up  against  Caesar;  he  is  guilty  of 
treason  against  the  Empire  of  which  you  are  a  servant 
and  officer.    Order  him  to  be  crucified!" 

In  accordance  with  the  finding  and  upon  the  evi- 
dence submitted,  coupled  with  the  recommendation  of 
Herod,  Pilate  delivered  to  his  accusers  Jesus  to  be 
crucified.  The  soldiers  of  the  Governor  took  him  into 
the  common  hall,  where  he  was  surrounded  by  all  the 
soldiery.  They  stripped  him,  and  in  accord  with  the 
custom  of  that  age,  and  that  country,  they  put  over 
his  shoulders  a  scarlet  robe;  they  platted  a  crown  of 
thorns  and  put  it  upon  his  head ;  they  placed  a  reed  in 
his  right  hand  a^  though  to  mock  him ;  the  assembled 
multitude  bowed  their  knees  before  him,  saying,  "Hail 
king  of  the  Jews !" 

Jesus  was  spat  upon,  and  mocked,  after  which  he 
was  led  away  and  crucified. 

We  have  now  considered  the  elements  of  law  and 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS  175 

fact  as  related  to  the  legality  of  the  Roman  trial.  The 
powers  and  duties  of  Pilate  as  Procurator  of  Judea 
and  presiding  judge  at  the  trial  are  of  course  involved 
in  this  consideration,  as  well  as  the  general  principles 
of  Roman  provincial  administration,  the  legal  and  po- 
litical status  of  the  Jew  subject,  the  exact  requirements 
of  criminal  procedure  in  Roman  capital  cases,  and  in 
the  provinces  throughout  that  Empire  at  the  date  of 
the  crucifixion. 

Analyzing  the  case  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  jurist, 
and  in  the  absence  of  all  question  as  to  the  divinity  of 
the  accused,  comparing  the  requirements  of  the  law 
with  the  actualities  of  the  case,  we  can  come  to  no 
other  conclusion  than  that  the  proceedings  against 
Jesus  before  Pilate  on  the  charge  preferred  against 
him,  on  the  last  trial,  in  the  Roman  court,  were  legally 
conducted. 

Let  it  be  understood  in  this  analysis  that  it  must  be 
held  and  borne  in  mind  that  in  reviewing  this  case  or 
any  other,  errors  cannot  be  presumed  that  do  not  af- 
firmatively appear  upon  the  record.  It  is  rather  to  be 
presumed  that  what  should  have  been  done  was  done. 
Hence  we  find  that  Pilate  acted  in  strict  obedience  to 
the  requirements  of  Roman  law  in  trying  Jesus.  The 
legal  presumption  is  that  a  bench  of  judges  helped 
Pilate  to  conduct  this  trial ;  that  they  were  in  and 
about  the  Praetorium  and  actually  took  part  in  the 
proceedings.     This  inference  is  strengthened  by  the 


T76  THE    LEGALITY    OF 

fact  that  Pilate  called  Jesus  into  the  judgment  hall  of 
the  palace  in  order  to  examine  him.  (Geikie,  "The 
Life  and  Words  of  Christ,"  vol.  II.,  p.  532.)  The 
legal  presumption  is  that  the  witnesses  who  were  called 
against  Jesus  gave  competent  testimony,  and  that  the 
weight  of  the  evidence  submitted,  together  with  the 
admissions  of  the  accused,  was  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  court  in  finding  him  guilty  and  imposing  the  pen- 
alty provided  through  due  process  of  law. 

I  must  agree  with  many  noted  historians  in  holding 
that  it  was  Pilate's  duty  to  maintain  peace  and  order 
in  Judea  and  to  maintain  Roman  power.  In  doing  so, 
he  was  clearly  within  his  prerogative  if  ample  evidence 
was  submitted  in  regular  form,  in  carrying  out  the 
mandate  of  the  law.  In  this  contention  I  take  no  cog- 
nizance of  the  divinity  of  the  prisoner  before  him,  or 
of  his  Messiah-like  qualities.  In  the  discussion  of  these 
questions,  I  have  treated  him  as  man  alone — teacher 
and  Jew.  Undoubtedly  many  will  disagree  in  the  posi- 
tion assumed.  Let  homage  be  paid  to  the  character 
of  Jesus  by  those  who  will,  those  of  other  beliefs  will 
not  question  the  honesty  of  their  intentions  and  acts. 
The  writer  believes  that  the  sublimest  achievements  are 
found  among  those  who  believe  that  whatever  is  good, 
is  for  the  greatest  benefit  of  all  mankind,  and  that  it 
is  not  necessary  for  one  to  be  bound  by  the  circum- 
scribed dogma  of  any  one  creed  or  denomination. 
With  the  question  whether,  as  he  proclaimed,  Jesus 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS  177 

was  in  fact  the  resurrection  and  the  Hfe,  or  whether, 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  the  uncontrovertible 
facts,  he  was  a  great  teacher,  imbued  with  rehgious 
faith,  imperial  courage,  the  grandest  of  character,  and 
filled  with  the  loftiest  sentiments  of  all  life,  are  matters 
which  will  be  left  for  the  consideration  of  this  and 
future  generations,  to  be  determined  once  and  for  all 
in  the  Grand  Hereafter. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Bibliography. 


Leading  authorities  on  "The  Trial  of  Jesus."  Something 
over  two  hundred  and  fifty  works  have  so  far  been  written 
treating  directly  with  the  historical  facts  surrounding  the 
trial  of  Jesus  before  the  Great  Sanhedrin  and  before  Pontius 
Pilate.  Some  of  these  are  of  great  worth,  while  others,  from 
an  accurate  historical  viewpoint,  cannot  be  considered. 

The  student  who  desires  to  go  to  the  bottom  will  find  the 
following  authentic  and  reliable.  These  and  many  other  au- 
thorities have  been  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  the  fore- 
going articles: 

The  Bible.  English  Authorized  Version  of  1611. 

The  Talmud.  Babylonian     Recension,    translated    into 

English  by  Michael  L.  Rodkinson.  New 
Talmud  Publishing  Company,  New  York, 
1896. 

The  Mishna.  Edition     of     Surenhusius.      Amsterdam, 

1698-1703. 

Abbott.  Jesus   of   Nazareth,    by    Lyman   Abbott. 

Harper  Brothers,  New  York,  1882. 

Andrews.  The    Life    of    Our    Lord,    by    Samuel   J. 

Andrews.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New 
York,  1906. 

Baring-Gould.  Curious  Myths  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  S. 

Baring-Gould.  Roberts  Brothers,  Bos- 
ton, 1880. 


182 


THE    LEGALITY    OF 


Baur.  The  Church  History  of  the  First  Three 

Centuries,  by  F.  C.  Baur.  Translated 
from  German  by  A.  Mendies.  London, 
1878. 

Benny.  The  Criminal  Code  of  the  Jews,  by  Philip 

Berger  Benny.  Smith,  Elder  &  Com- 
pany,  London,   1880. 

Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England 

by  Sir  William  Blackstone.  Edited  and 
annotated  by  Thomas  M.  Cooley.  Cal- 
laghan  &  Company,  Chicago,  1884. 

Chandler.  The    Trial    of    Jesus,    by    William    M. 

Chandler.  Empire  Publishing  Company, 
New  York,  1908. 

Cicero.  M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  orationes.    Whittaker 

&  Company,  London,  1885. 

Deutsch.  The  Talmud,  by  Emanuel  Deutsch.    The 

Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America, 
Philadelphia,  1896. 

DoLLiNGER.  The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,  by  John  J.  L 

Dollinger.  Two  volumes.  Gibbins  & 
Company,  London,  1906. 

Edersheim.  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Mes- 

siah,   by   Alfred   Edersheim.     Two   vol- 
umes.     Longmans,    Green   &    Company, 
'New  York,  1905. 

Encyclopedia.  Jewish  Encyclopedia.    Funk  &  Wagnalls, 

London,  1901. 

Farrar.  The    Life    of    Christ,    by    Frederic    W. 

Farrar.  E.  P.  Dutton  &  Company,  New 
York,  1883. 


THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 


183 


Fisher. 
Geib. 
Geikie. 
Gibbon. 

Gospel  Comments. 
Graetz. 

Greenleaf. 

Greenidge. 

Harnack. 

HiGGINS. 


The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  by- 
George  P.  Fisher.  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons,  New  York,  1906. 

Geschichte  des  romischen  Criminal  pro- 
cesses, von  Dr.  Gustave  Geib.  Weid- 
mann'sche  Buchhandlung.     Leipzig,  1842. 

The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ,  by  Cun- 
ningham Geikie.  Two  volumes.  Henry 
S.  King  &  Company,  London,  1877. 

The  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  by  Edward  Gibbon. 
With  notes  by  Rev.  H.  H.  Milman.  Phil- 
lips, Sampson  &  Company,  Boston,  1853. 

In  Library  at  Moscow,  by  Vaseyopolis, 
ninth  century. 

History  of  the  Jews,  by  Heinrich  Graetz. 
Six  volumes.  The  Jewish  Publication 
Society  of  America,  Philadelphia,  1891. 

The  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists,  by 
Simon  Greenleaf.  Soney  &  Page,  New- 
ark, N.  J.,  1903. 

The  Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's  Time, 
by  A.  H.  J.  Greenidge.  Stevens  &  Sons, 
London,  1901. 

Reden  und  Aufsatze,  von  Adolf  Harnack. 
J.  Ricker'sche  Verlagsbuchhandlung,  Gie- 
sen,  1904, 

Anacalypsis ;  An  Inquiry  into  the  Origin 
of  Languages,  Nations  and  Religions,  by 
Godfrey  Higgins.  Longman,  Brown  & 
Longman,  London,   1827. 


i84 
Hodge. 

Innes. 

josephus. 

JOST. 

Juvenal. 
Keim. 

Lardner. 

Lemann. 


LiVY. 

LOISY. 

Mendelsohn. 


THE    LEGALITY    OF 

Systematic  Theology,  by  Charles  Hodge. 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  1892. 

The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  A.  Taylor 
Innes.    T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1905. 

The  Works  of  Flavius  Josephus,  Whis- 
ton's  Translations. 

Geschichte  des  Judenthums,  von  I.  M. 
Jost.  Dorffling  und  Francke,  Leipzig, 
1857. 

The  Satires  of  Juvenal.  George  Bell  & 
Sons,  London,  1904. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  by  Theodor  Keim. 
Six  volumes.  Williams  &  Norgate,  Lon- 
don, 1883. 

Works  of  Nathaniel  Lardner.  Ten  vol- 
umes.       William   Ball,    London,    1838. 

Valeur  de  I'assemblee  qui  prononca  la 
peine  de  mort  contre  Jesus  Christ,  par 
MM.  Lemann.  Translated  from  the 
French  into  English  under  the  title 
"Jesus  Before  the  Sanhedrin,"  by  Prof. 
Julius  Magath,  of  Oxford,  Ga.,  in  1899. 

The  History  of  Rome,  by  Titus  Livius. 
George  Bell  &  Sons,  London,  1906. 

Les  Evangiles  Synoptiques,  par  Alfred 
Loisy.     Librairie  Fishbacher,  Paris,  1907. 

The  Criminal  Jurisprudence  of  the  An- 
cient Hebrews,  by  S.  Mendelsohn.  M. 
Curlander,  Baltimore,  1891. 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 


MOMMSEN. 

Montesquieu. 
Paley. 

Rabeinoqicz. 

Renan. 


ROSADI. 


Salvador. 


SCHURER. 


Stephen. 


The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  by 
Theodor  Mommsen.  Two  volumes. 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  1899. 

De  I'Esprit  des  Lois,  par  Montesquieu. 
Garnier  Freres,  Paris,  1905. 

Evidences  of  Christianity,  by  William 
Paley.  The  Religious  Tract  Society, 
London,  1794. 

Legislation  Criminelle  du  Talmud,  par  L 
J.  M.  Rabbinoqicz.  Chez  I'auteur,  Paris, 
1876. 

Histoire  des  origines  du  christianisme, 
par  Joseph  Ernest  Renan.  Paris,  1863. 
Livres  1-6:  i.  Vie  de  Jesus.  2.  Les  apo- 
tres.  3.  Saint  Paul.  4.  L'Antichrist.  5. 
Les  evangiles  et  la  seconde  generation 
chretienne.     6.  L'eglise  chretienne. 

The  Trial  of  Jesus,  by  Giovanni  Rosadi. 
Dodd,  Mead  &  Company,  New  York, 
1905. 

Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise,  par 
J.  Salvador.  Michel  Levy-Freres,  Paris, 
1862. 

The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  Emil  Schurer.  Charles  Scrib- 
ner's Sons,  New  York,  1906. 

Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity,  by  James 
Fitzjames  Stephen.  Henry  Holt  &  Com- 
pany, New  York,   1873. 


i86 

Suetonius. 

Tacitus. 

Tagore. 

Wise. 


THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

The  Lives  of  the  Twelve  Caesars,  by  C. 
Suetonius  Tranquillus.  George  Bell  & 
Sons,  London,  igo6. 

The  Works  of  Tacitus.  American  Book 
Company,  New  York,  1904. 

Tagore  Rab,  teacher  to  the  Rishis,  A.  D. 
326.     Library,  Simla. 

The  Martyrdom  of  Jesus,  by  Isaac  M. 
Wise.  The  Bloch  Publishing  and  Print- 
ing Company,  Cincinnati  and  Chicago, 
1888. 


Date  Due 

iflf^  7    '-- 

1 

^ff\  / 

PlP  l 

i\r  t- 

^""""^^ 

• 

f) 

BS2425.6.R51 

The  illegality  of  the  trial  of  Jesus, 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00031   5269 


